ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked-

General Election Counts

David Amess: Whether the Electoral Commission has had discussions with (a) media organisations and (b) political parties on the timing of the election counts for the general election.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that it had discussions with the BBC about the timing of election counts in September 2009. The commission further informs me that the timing of election counts was discussed with representatives of the political parties who attended the October 2009 meeting of the parliamentary parties panel.

David Amess: Recalling my re-election to Parliament in 1992, when the count was completed within an hour of the close of poll-I am advised that the result indicated that there would be the re-election of a Conservative Government, and financial stability-does my hon. Friend agree that we should continue with the tradition of counting immediately after the close of poll, in order to bring financial stability and reduce the possibility of electoral fraud?

Gary Streeter: That is, of course, my personal opinion, but as the House knows full well, whether to count votes on Thursday or Friday is a matter for individual returning officers; that has been our law for more than 100 years. However, the law does require returning officers to count votes as soon as is practicable after the election. The Electoral Commission website indicates which returning officers have so far decided to count on the Friday or are undecided, and I encourage hon. Members in those areas to enter into a dialogue with the returning officer to discuss whether their decision meets that criterion.

Denis MacShane: We all welcomed your statement on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and I completely agree with what has been said from the Opposition Benches-but will not the real story of election night be the fact that possibly up to 50 seats will have been bought by Lord Ashcroft's money, and what-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is far exceeding the boundaries of the question; it was a good try, but I am afraid it did not work.

David Heath: As the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, the key words are as far as "is practicable". There are constituencies where this is not practicable for geographical reasons, and sometimes simply because of historical practice. What an individual returning officer should not do, however, is delay the count simply because he thinks that verifying or counting postal votes might be a little bit difficult. That is the message the Electoral Commission needs to send out to returning officers.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is right. Throughout our history, several seats at every general election have counted on a Friday; I am sure colleagues on the Opposition Benches will be interested to know that in 1979 121 seats counted on a Friday. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the Electoral Commission has encouraged returning officers to be clear about why they are making this decision, and be able to justify it to their local community.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-

Wireless Audio Equipment

Robert Key: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to assist cathedrals and parish churches to retune or replace wireless audio equipment which operates on frequencies within Channel 69 following the clearance of that channel by Ofcom.

Stuart Bell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to David Taylor. As you know, he was an assiduous attender at our Question Time. He put pertinent and important questions before the House and assisted our Ecclesiastical Committee, and he will be greatly missed. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	I can tell the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) that the Church of England has joined an industry-led campaign to press the Government for compensation for affected groups. We are encouraging churches to contact their installation companies for advice and to seek a compensation package.

Robert Key: The Government are making hundreds of millions of pounds out of the spectrum auctions, and as the hon. Gentleman has said, some compensation has been promised. This affects not only churches, cathedrals and voluntary organisations, but organisations right across the creative arts. Should not any compensation include not only the residual value of equipment but replacement value, as churches have been forced off those frequencies by the Government?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. The compensation package takes into account the full cost of the significant disruption, particularly to larger churches that use a number of wireless microphones. I estimate that about one in eight churches will need to retune or replace their equipment, at an average cost of about £500. The Government agree with Ofcom that compensation is due, but the level, and eligibility, still need to be agreed.

Peter Luff: May I tell the hon. Gentleman how much I welcomed support from the Church of England this week for early-day motion 323, in my name and those of 131 other Members? I urge him to use all the resources of the Church Commissioners to put the maximum possible pressure on the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that justice is done in this very important matter.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have read his early-day motion 323 on the Save our Sound UK campaign. I agree with his point. The Government recognise the importance of churches in our communities, and I am sure they will recognise that this is an unfortunate anomaly, as they did in relation to our unfair surface water charges last year. I urged the Government to respond robustly then, and I do so now, with the support of the House.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked-

General Election Counts

Peter Bone: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the number of general election counts which will commence on polling day.

Desmond Swayne: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the number of general election counts which will commence on polling day.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has asked all returning officers to provide information about their current plans for commencing the count at the next UK parliamentary general election. This information has been made available in the House of Commons Library. In summary, as of 7 January returning officers for 586 out of the 650 constituencies had provided information. Of those, returning officers in 330 constituencies plan to start counting on polling day, a further 17 will commence counting on polling day unless the general election is combined with local authority elections, 52 have decided to count on the Friday and 187 were still undecided.

Peter Bone: Unfortunately, one of the constituencies that plans to count on Friday is Wellingborough. Could my hon. Friend recommend to the Speaker's Committee that the law be changed, so that counts have to be made on a Thursday unless there are exceptional circumstances and tin-pot, upstart little town clerks cannot change things?

Gary Streeter: I wish my hon. Friend would say what he really feels! When the Electoral Commission was set up the House did not give it the power to direct returning officers, and of course, if the law is to be changed that is a matter for this House, not for the Electoral Commission. As we know, returning officers are usually the chief executives of local authorities, and Members of Parliament and councillors up and down the land are usually not without influence in working alongside these hard-working and respectable individuals.

Desmond Swayne: The New Forest constituencies will be doing the right thing, but I hope that the only present occupant of the Treasury Bench, the duty Whip, will have noted the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). We all appear to be in agreement that either we are going to do something about this or we are not, and we are just going to hope. Perhaps someone on the Treasury Bench could give some instruction as to the meaning of the law: what does "as soon as is practicable" actually mean?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is to be hoped that the guidance that has been given from this House in recent days, including your own very powerful statement on this matter, Mr. Speaker, will influence the 187 returning officers who have not yet decided to take the view that counting on Thursday is the right thing to do. This is not a matter for the Electoral Commission.

Denis MacShane: rose-

Mr. Speaker: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a second bite at the cherry, but I do not expect him to abuse the bite.

Denis MacShane: My understanding is that if a question contains a reference to an organisation -[Interruption.] No, no, let me ask my question first, and Mr. Speaker may then rule me out of order. May I ask the hon. Member representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what conversations he has had with the Electoral Commission, not only on the counting of votes, which is so essential, but on the counting of the money that will be used to buy those votes?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)-I think he can guess what I am going to say-that although he will not want to ask me for a ruling on this matter, I shall give him one anyway: he cannot be expected to answer that which is not part of the question. I think that we have dealt with the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman had a go. I call Mr. Andrew Mackay.

Andrew MacKay: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to return to the question. Does the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) agree that the real problem is that, as he has pointed out, most of the returning officers are the chief executives of councils? Understandably, their first priority is to keep costs down and offer good value to council tax payers, so they are choosing to count on Friday, whereas they had previously counted on Thursday. We need an absolute instruction from this House that that should not happen, except in exceptional circumstances. Without such an instruction all too many seats will count on a Friday, which will be-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an immensely experienced parliamentarian, so he will know that it causes problems for the  Hansard writers if a Member is not facing the House.

Gary Streeter: It is worth reiterating that returning officers are independent under the law of this land, and have been for 100 years and more. Of course the Electoral Commission can and does issue guidance to returning officers, but its primary concern is about accuracy and ensuring public confidence in the outcome of any count that is held.

Electoral Register (Britons Abroad)

Philip Dunne: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the number of Britons living abroad who are on the electoral register.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that although it has not made such an estimate itself, the Office for National Statistics collects and publishes annual electoral registration data. The most recent figures are for the electoral registers of 1 December 2008, and they show that there were 13,695 entries for overseas voters on UK electoral registers. The ONS is due to publish figures for the 1 December 2009 electoral registers next month.

Philip Dunne: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us those figures, which appear at first sight to reflect a decline of some 2,000 since the previous year. Does he agree that this is a disgraceful performance, and what can he recommend that the Electoral Commission can do to give recommendations to any incoming Government to improve the ability of overseas expatriate citizens to participate in our national election?

Gary Streeter: It is a matter for the Government and for this House whether the law on how people can register and vote from overseas is changed. The Electoral Commission is committed to increasing the number of eligible people who are registered to vote, and has recently conducted a campaign that resulted in nearly 7,400 overseas voter registration forms being downloaded from the commission's website. The commission plans to run further activity in advance of the general election targeting British citizens living abroad.

Simon Hughes: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those answers. First, will he encourage the Electoral Commission to continue to work and to do more, because there are huge numbers of people in all categories, including overseas voters, who are clearly eligible to vote but are not yet on the list? Will he suggest that colleagues from all parties might like an urgent meeting with the commission to discuss maximising activity, and therefore the number of people who are on the register, and therefore eligible to vote in the elections that we know will happen this spring?

Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Electoral Commission is amenable to such a meeting. It plans to spend a further £189,500 targeting overseas voters in this financial year, and is committed to ensuring that the number of overseas voters who take part in our elections increases.

Denis MacShane: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a case of third time unlucky. He cannot expect me to help him out again. I call Mr. Hugh Bayley- [ Interruption. ] I have to say to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that the length of time for which he lived abroad is neither here nor there when it comes to the selection of who asks questions- [ Interruption. ] With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman will hear this. He had two opportunities and I am not obliged to offer him a third.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-

Fires and Fire Safety

Hugh Bayley: How much the Church of England spent on (a) repairs necessary after fires and (b) fire safety measures in churches in the last five years.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter for individual churches and cathedrals, and the figures are not held centrally. I know, however, that many churches and cathedrals have undertaken work on fire prevention, detection and containment.

Hugh Bayley: After Christmas there was a fire in York minster's stone yard, where the cathedral's greatest window is being stored while it undergoes a £25 million restoration. The window was saved by firemen and minster staff, who carried it to safety. It is a work of art as important as the Sistine chapel ceiling. Will my hon. Friend ask the Church Commissioners to press the Government to protect such works of art from fire and other risks, just as they protect works of art in our national galleries and museums?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Fortunately no people were harmed in the fire, and the panels of the incomparable great east window were saved. The Church welcomes the recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee that cathedrals should receive direct funding from the Government.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that for specialised properties, bodies such as the National Farmers Union have created their own insurance companies. Have the Church Commissioners given any thought, given the nature of churches, to the idea that there should perhaps be a central insurance company to insure more effectively against the risk of fire?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I can tell him that advice on managing the risk of fire is available from Church House, from dioceses and from the Ecclesiastical insurance group, which insures most Church of England churches.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked-

General Election Counts

Andrew Turner: What information the Electoral Commission holds on the number of election counts that are not planned to commence on the evening of polling day in the general election.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has asked all returning officers to provide information about their current plans for counting ballot papers at the next UK parliamentary general election. This information has been made available in the House of Commons Library. In summary, as of 7 January, returning officers for 586 out of 650 constituencies had provided information. Of these, 52 do not plan to count ballot papers on the evening of polling day at the general election. A further 17 have indicated that they may defer counting if the general election is combined with local authority elections, and 187 were still undecided.

Andrew Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend. In 2001 the count in my constituency started at 10 o'clock at night and continued until after 5 o'clock in the morning. It was recommenced at noon the next day, and I did not get my result until well into the afternoon. I should point out that there was only one count. Is he aware that already the count may not be completed on election day, even without the extra day?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I am pleased to see that his constituency has decided to continue to count on polling day itself even though, as he said, that may take some time. As we all know, some returning officers have decided to count on Friday because of the extra time and people required to check postal votes taken by hand to polling stations on polling day.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked-

Householders (Protection of Property)

David Amess: What discussions she has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service in charging householders who have used force in cases of burglary.

Vera Baird: The Attorney-General and I have regular meetings with the DPP, at which we discuss a range of issues within the terms of the protocol between the Law Officers and the prosecution departments that was published in July 2009.

David Amess: The Solicitor-General must be aware that hardly a week goes by without some sort of report of a victim of burglary bizarrely being prosecuted. There is certainly a feeling of great injustice in the country, so will she give clearer guidance to the CPS when it considers prosecution?

Vera Baird: I do not accept that hardly a week goes by, although obviously I am well aware of the cases that hit the headlines recently and some years ago. As a consequence of the earlier case in 2005, a joint statement was issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS that made it very clear that a person is entitled to use force to resist a burglar. The current case has brought the matter forward again, but it has not really impacted on the very good advice contained in that statement.
	A survey of prosecutions shows that in the 15 years between 1989 and 2004, only 11 people were charged with responding in any way violently to being burgled. As the hon. Gentleman says, such cases clearly occur more frequently than that, which suggests that the law is right overall, and deals with them sympathetically. In his judgment yesterday on the most recent case, the Lord Chief Justice said that it was not at all about a person defending himself after a burglary, as the burglary was long over before the violence that gave rise to the sentence took place.

David Drew: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept my opinion that the law is right and that there must not be a change? Otherwise we would be putting property above life, and that is something that I hope our law will never accept.

Vera Baird: Certainly, an appeal against conviction in the current case was refused. There is no suggestion in the thorough judgment from the Lord Chief Justice that he considers there to be anything wrong with the law. The barrister who defended this family also defended Tony Martin, and he said on the radio this morning that he thought that the law was right. To avoid doubt, I emphasise that the law allows for what was referred to in the case as a "moment of unexpected anguish", when a person honestly and reasonably thinks that they are doing what is necessary. Members of the jury have to try to put themselves in that person's position, and evaluate how high their feelings would be. Even then, they must ask whether, taking all that emotion into account, the response was reasonable. I suspect that the law is pretty accurate, and that juries have every opportunity to give as much credit as they want to the incredibly tense situations that people can find themselves in.

Alan Beith: Given that the courts have shown that they can defend householders and understand the situations that arise, will the Solicitor-General continue to resist those siren voices who want the law rewritten? We have had enough criminal justice legislation as it is.

Vera Baird: Some of the criminal justice legislation that has gone through the House has been extremely good. It has benefited victims of domestic violence and rape and improved conviction rates enormously, so one cannot sweep all sorts of criminal justice law up together and say that it is all a bad thing. However, I agree that we should resist any calls to change the law. That is simply not necessary, as I think that the courts deal with such cases quite properly.

David Winnick: Is it not absolute nonsense to suggest that the current law, which has been in existence for so long, is soft on burglars? The law is quite clear, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, and if one believes in the rule of law one should not try to change the existing position.

Vera Baird: Yes, I do agree. The case of Palmer, which essentially set out in common law the principles that are now in statute, has been working since 1971 with very little complaint. In the two cases that have given the most cause for concern, the courts have made it clear-in both instances-that the violence happened after the burglary was over, and we do not allow that. That is breaking the rule of law, itself; it is revenge, not self-defence.

Edward Garnier: One aspect of the Hussain case that has escaped public attention is the way in which the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and before that the Criminal Justice Act 2003, badly restricted the discretion of the sentencer. Judge Reddihough would have been more able to produce the sentence that the Court of Appeal produced yesterday had he not been hogtied by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, or the Sentencing Council. Will the Solicitor-General please discuss with her Government colleagues getting rid of the Sentencing Council, so that judges can sentence on the facts before them, rather than having to follow a template issued by other people elsewhere?

Vera Baird: There is no template, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. The judiciary have a discretion and they rightly exercise it, because they, at first instance, are the people who see the dramatis personae before them, and who can make a proper assessment of the absolute detail and the nature of the person. Judges have plenty of discretion, and in the judgment that I have read, the trial judge made no suggestion that he found himself hogtied-and the Lord Chief Justice certainly did not, either.

Criminal Charges

Philip Davies: What guidance is issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the period of time within which charges in criminal cases should be brought.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for charging in about 35 per cent. of criminal cases. There is no separate guidance on time, but the principle is to charge as soon as possible, and there are obviously controls over the situation when people are remanded in custody. The hon. Gentleman made a freedom of information request about the average time between the police reporting to the CPS and a charge, and he received the answer 8.3 days. I do not know whether he found that helpful, because some cases are dealt with very quickly and others require a forensic report before there can be a charge. However, that is the average.

Philip Davies: The longer it takes the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to charge somebody, the longer very serious criminals could be out on the streets on police bail committing further crimes. The average time that the CPS spends making a decision ranges from three days in Cumbria to an astonishing 20 days in Northamptonshire. What is the Solicitor-General doing to address that?

Vera Baird: It is hard to pinpoint the hon. Gentleman's complaint. I do not know the nature of endemic offending in the two parts of the country to which he refers; there may be significant differences. However, people are not automatically on bail pending charge; some are remanded in custody. Then a charge becomes urgent, and the CPS respond accordingly. There have been vast improvements through statutory charging, and its efficacy has been praised in no less than four recent reports.

Defendants' Health (Prosecutions)

Simon Hughes: What consideration the Crown Prosecution Service gives to the physical and mental health of defendants in making decisions to prosecute.

Vera Baird: The evidence that a defendant has a significant physical or mental illness may mean that the Crown Prosecution Service decides that the public interest does not always require a prosecution. However, the defendant's health must be balanced with the seriousness of the offence and the need to safeguard the public.

Simon Hughes: Is the Solicitor-General willing to see me about a case in which the charge has just been dropped at the second review by the CPS? It relates to a constituent of mine, whose son, a member of our staff, has worked for us in this building. It was clearly inappropriate, for a domestic matter that occurred at home, with no support from the victim-another member of the family-and where the evidence was clear from the beginning, to prosecute a seriously mentally ill individual.

Vera Baird: I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because we looked into why the hon. Gentleman was asking the question. Of course I shall meet him, and it is better if we talk about it privately, as it were, because it is a family matter. However, my general understanding is that there was a mental health issue, and that the CPS received information early that the condition could be controlled, but had not been at the time. That raised the question of whether, if the man in question again did not take his medication, there would be a further threat to someone else. Later medical evidence has, I think, helped to put the matter to rest, but I am certainly very happy to discuss the case with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that nothing that I have said here upsets the family further. There are clearly issues to discuss.

Bribery Bill

Jo Swinson: What recent assessment she has made of the extent to which Crown servants are engaged in the activities contemplated in clause 12 of the Bribery Bill.

John Hemming: What recent assessment she has made of the extent to which Crown servants are engaged in the activities contemplated in clause 12 of the Bribery Bill.

Vera Baird: The Government have assessed that there are occasions when the fight against serious crime, the protection of national security or the safety of the armed forces may require the authorities concerned to offer financial or other kinds of inducement in order to carry out their functions effectively. The extent to which such conduct occurs has not been quantified, as far as I am aware, but the Government are satisfied as to the need for the defence in general.

Jo Swinson: Can the Minister explain why the Government have felt it necessary to give the police and the Army a licence to bribe, given that the draft Bribery Bill covered only the security services, and that the Joint Committee on the draft Bill said that it had received no persuasive evidence that even that was necessary?

Vera Baird: The Bill is in the House of Lords, is it not? I understand that those responsible for the Government's business there have accepted that the Bill's current definition of who may be covered by this is too wide, and that it would probably be better to specify a list. Perhaps there would then be arguments about who was on the list, but that approach would significantly narrow the present terminology, which is pretty general.

John Hemming: What I find particularly odd in this proposal is that under clause 6 the police are to be allowed to bribe a UK official but not a foreign official. Why is that?

Vera Baird: There is a specific exclusion from clause 12 to match the OECD treaty, which prohibits bribery of a foreign public official. The services are not going to be allowed to bribe, except in very particular cases. It will be a defence, which would have to be raised if somebody were prosecuted for bribery, and the burden would be on them to raise it. The matter is still being debated in the House of Lords, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are putting forward full frontal attacks. It seems to us, however, that we must not hamstring the security services.

David Howarth: Obviously, the Bribery Bill is very welcome. However, can the Solicitor-General confirm that this particular proposal allows not only the giving, but the receiving, of bribes by the armed forces, the police and the intelligence services? Can she also confirm what appeared to be said in the House of Lords-that in the view of Ministers the purposes for which this can be done include not only national security and suppression of crime but the furtherance of national economic purposes, which would not be consonant with our international obligations?

Vera Baird: It is very hard to give somebody a defence for giving a bribe if he has not given one already. Of course, the people to whom he has given it are ultimately likely to be involved in far more serious charges themselves. I have not understood economic advantage to have the remotest connection with it. This is about security, and it is intended to be used within a very narrow ambit.

Rape Cases (Prosecution)

Ann Cryer: What steps she is taking to increase the rate of prosecution in rape cases.

Vera Baird: Steps that we have already taken have led to reports of rape to the police more than doubling in the past 10 years, and there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of convictions. We have set up a cross-governmental rape monitoring group, and there is a body continually going around areas of criminal justice to spread best practice from one place through all the others. We have commissioned Baroness Stern specifically to review the response of public authorities to rape, and she will report in February.

Ann Cryer: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that very useful reply; we are clearly moving in the right direction. However, I think she will agree that at the end of the day there are too few successful prosecutions in rape cases, which could be because too many women are withdrawing. What are the Crown Prosecution Service and various police forces doing to support women so that they do not withdraw? Is anyone explaining to such women that when they do withdraw, the person concerned-the rapist-could well go on to rape and rape again, as in the recent "black cab" case?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend hits on a very important point that needs to be made much more regularly, which is that much rape is serial offending. When women do not complain or when they withdraw a complaint, they are not just making a decision on their own behalf; in many cases they are potentially putting other people at risk. I do not want to put any more pressure on rape complainants than there already is, but there is a clear and emerging position that much rape is serial offending.
	Almost all sexual offence complainants are now given an independent sexual violence adviser who stays with them as a befriender and supporter from complaint to at least the end of the criminal proceedings and who helps them into counselling after that. That is a great support that is helping more women to be ready to come forward and to sustain a complaint when they do.

Douglas Hogg: Although it is true that the interests of complainants are very high in importance, so too are the interests of defendants. May I say that we must do nothing to dilute the principles that require a case to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and ensure that the burden rests on the Crown?

Vera Baird: Wise words with which I totally agree. We are not seeking to do that and have not done anything that will. What is important is to support complainants so that the pressures of having to talk in front of a court about something extremely intimate, distressing and traumatising are not so overwhelming that people will not come forward and ensure that justice is done. That is what we have been trying to do.

Corston Report

Julie Morgan: What contribution the Law Officers' Departments are making towards the implementation of the recommendations of the Corston report on meeting the needs of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system.

Vera Baird: The Government accepted almost all of Baroness Corston's recommendations and are committed to diverting from custody vulnerable women who are not dangerous or serious offenders by strengthening services in the community that can tackle the complex needs of such women, who are frequently convicted of a lot of low-level offending. There have been 31 grants to such organisations, including Together Women and the Cardiff-based women's turnaround project, which is hosted by Safer Wales and offers practical support so that women can manage their lives better and do not fall into offending. My hon. Friend has been a great champion of the turnaround project.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. and learned Friend and congratulate the Government on the progress made on the Corston report and on the fact that the number of women in prison is now falling. I am particularly pleased about the Cardiff project. Does she agree that many women offenders are, or have been, victims of abuse to a disproportionate level? What more can the Law Officers' Department do to help women who have been abused as either children or adults when they present as offenders?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I chaired the Fawcett commission on women and criminal justice, the evidence made it plain that a disproportionate number of women in custody for low-level, non-dangerous offending had either been sexually abused or suffered domestic violence, and through the chaos that followed that treatment had declined into crime. Because at that stage we were not intervening as quickly and as well as we do now in cases of either domestic violence or sexual abuse, we were, in a sense, punishing them twice-by not helping them early enough to prevent them from descending into offending and then by putting them in custody when they offended. We are now trying to tackle the problem, and it is notable that organisations such as the turnaround project and Together Women deal with women not just after they have they have been convicted but after they have been abused, when their lives are becoming chaotic, to try to save them from ever descending into criminality at all.

Snow and Ice Clearing

Philip Dunne: What discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on whether householders may be prosecuted in relation to snow and ice clearing activities which lead to the injury of another.

Vera Baird: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman-I hope that he will not take it badly if I put it briefly, and I know that you will not, Mr. Speaker-is that there have been no discussions about prosecuting people for clearing snow and ice.

Philip Dunne: I appreciate that the Solicitor-General might have been trying to clarify the fact that clearing is not subject to criminal action, and if that was what she intended to say, I am grateful to her. However, she will be aware of the considerable concern among householders in recent weeks that they are potentially liable to prosecution either from local authorities or in civil cases. It would be helpful if she could get clarification from colleagues, perhaps in the Ministry of Justice, that that is not likely to occur.

Vera Baird: When I saw that the hon. Gentleman's question was about prosecution, which is our responsibility as Law Officers, I sent back to the Crown Prosecution Service to ask it to scour the four corners of jurisprudence to look for anything that looked like a possible prosecution for snow clearing with some bad effect, but we could not find anything, whether relating to local authorities or anything else. Between us, the hon. Gentleman and I can probably rule out prosecution for clearing snow. Civil liability is a different thing. It looks very remote to me, but I am not going to give free legal advice.

Youth Matters (Expenditure)

Andrew Pelling: How much was spent in respect of her responsibilities for youth matters in the last 12 months.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman asks in general terms how much was spent on youth matters. Reducing youth crime and improving the criminal justice system for young people is a central part of the Government's effort to build safer communities, and action is planned for that.
	However, if he is asking about such things as the Law Officers' youth network, which encourages understanding and respect for the rule of law and the criminal justice system, I can tell him that in the past 12 months, it has cost just over £4,500. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service has spent almost £86,000 on a national schools project, with a similar information motive.

Andrew Pelling: Is there a danger that police officers spend too much time doing youth work that should really be provided by professional youth workers?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman would be asking me only for a view about that, because the police are not my responsibility. My constituency engagement tells me that police are very usefully involved in talking in schools, and they are sometimes even posted at schools for a while and have regular liaison with them, but I doubt they go beyond the four corners of their responsibilities and try to give people counselling and advice. I am not sure anything is going wrong, but he should take the matter up with the Home Office if he is worried.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

Reform of the House of Commons Committee

Jo Swinson: When the Government plans to respond to the report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons; and if she will make a statement.

Harriet Harman: The Government firmly believe in strengthening the role of the House of Commons, and making Parliament more effective is an essential part of restoring public trust in our political system. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government propose to accept a large number of the recommendations of the Wright Committee's report, including the election of Chairmen and members of Select Committees, a House Committee for scheduling non-Government businesses, and allowing Back Benchers to initiate debates on motions that will be voted on by the House. We intend to bring the matter to the House for debate and decision on 23 February.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Leader of the House for that response, and particularly for giving us the date, for which we have all been waiting, on which we will be able to discuss and vote on the Wright Committee proposals. I welcome the fact that the Government are minded to accept many of the proposals, although I would imagine that we are talking about House business, and therefore a free vote, and that it would not be for the Government to accept or reject the proposals. If the Government are accepting most of the proposals, which will she personally be rejecting?

Harriet Harman: There will be a free vote on this-of course, this is House business-but the hon. Lady will be aware that it is for the Government to table the motions. We take the Wright Committee's argument that that needs to be done with two characteristics: first, we need to seek consensus in order to take the matter forward, which is certainly what our approach will be, and I look forward to working with her and other hon. Members; and secondly, we need to make progress bit by bit. We will be making a good start and, I hope, a substantive and major start, with four key areas that I have outlined for debate and, I hope, decision by the House on 23 February.

David Heath: So now we know, after months of prevarication, that the full recommendations of the Wright Committee are not to be put before the House, that the House is not to be trusted to vote on all the recommendations, that the Government will choose those they accept, and that those will be the only ones put before the House. May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Lady that that is simply not right? It is not what was anticipated when the Wright Committee was set up, and it will be a grave disappointment to those who want genuine reform of this House.

Harriet Harman: I do not think it acceptable to suggest that what we have done is prevaricate. I think the Wright Committee worked with expedition and on a wide-ranging area of complex issues. The Committee itself said that the matter needed to be dealt with bit by bit and that further work was needed on some proposals. The hon. Gentleman has a choice. Either he can seek to work with us to make progress, or he can get in a huff about the process. It is down to him to choose.

George Young: The Wright Committee did indeed work with expedition, as the Leader of the House has just said, which is more than the Government have done-23 February is a long way off the eight weeks that the Wright Committee proposed for a response. Further to the question posed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), can she confirm that, whatever the House decides on 23 February, those recommendations will be implemented before the Dissolution of Parliament?

Harriet Harman: Indeed, we intend to give the House an opportunity to decide on a series of motions that will go beyond being an endorsement in principle and actually give to recommendations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on his attempt to suggest that we are dragging our feet on this issue. We want to ensure that we work together to bring forward changes that are comprehensively agreed.
	The convention is that, after a Select Committee report, the Government have two months in which to make a response. It is 21 January today and the two months is up on 24 January, and I am giving the Government's response here. The response is that we will have a debate on 23 February and suggest that we go forward in four key areas. Rather than a written response that can be debated generally outside the House, we think that it is better for the Government to give the House the opportunity to debate and decide these issues. Again, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the point that I made to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He can either get tangled up in an argument about the process or he can accept my suggestion that we work together to make substantive progress on four key areas of the Wright Committee's proposals.

Nicholas Winterton: Having campaigned for the handing back of authority from the Executive to the House for more than a decade-certainly while I was Chairman of the Procedure Committee and as a member of the Modernisation Committee-may I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House, which was signalled yesterday at Prime Minister's questions? The Leader of the House has chosen the important and fundamental issues that will give greater authority to Back Benchers. As long as the motions will be decided on a free vote, I warmly welcome what she has said in answer to this question, and I look forward to the House having more authority by the time that I leave it at the general election.

Harriet Harman: The request from the House to the Wright Committee was to make proposals that will-as the hon. Gentleman suggests-strengthen the way in which the House works.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

CO2 Emissions

Hugh Bayley: Which hon. Members have written to the (a) Serjeant at Arms and (b) House of Commons Commission in the last 12 months with proposals for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.

Nick Harvey: Responsibility for environmental matters in the House rests with the Director General of Facilities. In the last 12 months, four Members have written in with proposals for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions on the parliamentary estate. Such correspondence is viewed as confidential, so it would not be right to name them. The number does not include Members who made requests for the Commons to participate in environmental campaigns, and several proposals were made orally or through parliamentary questions- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. A question was asked and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was answering it, but people kept on chuntering away. That is just bad manners.

Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On 19 October, all members of the House of Commons Commission, from all parties, agreed that the House of Commons was not in a position to sign up to the 10:10 commitment. Two days later, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) proposed a motion committing the House to 10:10. Did the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) tell his party leader that the House of Commons Commission had considered the matter and decided that it was not practical and that he personally would not vote for that motion?

Nick Harvey: I had a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who was, I think, moving the motion to which the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) alludes. I had a discussion with my hon. Friend and explained why the Commission, much as it would have wished to sign up to the 10:10 campaign, did not feel able to do so.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

Parliamentary Questions

Andrew Turner: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the accuracy of responses to parliamentary questions.

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I keep the quality and timeliness of Ministers' answers to written parliamentary questions under continuous review. Following recommendations by the Procedure Committee and discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Prime Minister has recently written to Cabinet colleagues reminding them of the importance of answering written and parliamentary questions in a timely way and to an acceptable quality. We are, of course, always happy to make representations to Ministers on behalf of Members.

Andrew Turner: The number of ministerial corrections in the column headed MC in  Hansard seems to be growing. Does that mean that the accuracy of ministerial responses is improving or getting worse?

Barbara Keeley: I have not reviewed that recently, but I am perfectly happy to look into it. Of course, both the Leader of the House and I, and the Procedure Committee, are aware that the number of written questions keeps climbing, and sometimes very large numbers of written parliamentary questions are tabled to Ministers and Departments on the same day. However, if there is interest in checking the accuracy figures, I am certainly happy to do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, I am sure that the deputy Leader of the House will agree that there seems to be a growing problem with Ministers taking the easy option and saying that they do not have the information available. That could be on the salary of chief executives in the north-west or ambulance times, or even a basic question on Monitor. MPs are being denied such information because Ministers are taking the easy line. Will she do something about this?

Barbara Keeley: I am very happy to take up individual examples. The best response to such issues is to say that if Members give me examples of where they have had issues, I will be happy to write to Ministers and have meetings with them and officials, which I have done quite recently.

Question Time

Philip Hollobone: If she will bring forward proposals to amend the procedures of the House to prevent hon. Members who have secured a question for oral answer by a Minister from also asking a topical question to the same Minister at the same Question Time.

Barbara Keeley: When it recommended the introduction of topical questions, the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee concluded that Members should not have to choose between the two types of question. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Procedure Committee might have to consider the matter further based on the number of Members called on both substantive and topical questions at the same Question Time.

Philip Hollobone: Under the old system, for an hour's Question Time to a particular Department, each Member of the House got one chance to ask a question. Under the present procedures, some Members get to ask two questions, while others are frozen out altogether. Given the interest of the deputy Leader of the House and her boss in issues of equality, would she be kind enough to look seriously at that?

Barbara Keeley: It would be for the hon. Gentleman to make representations to the Procedure Committee if he wanted to have a change. Members feel that topical questions are quite a good opportunity to raise a question without notice, and they have proved to be one of the most popular innovations, so the issue is difficult. The Leader of the House is not responsible for the fairness of the shuffle, but this issue might be something for the Procedure Committee to look at.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

Severe Weather (Staffing)

Michael Fabricant: What estimate the House of Commons Commission has made of the number of hours spent by staff covering for colleagues unable to get to work owing to the recent period of severe weather; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Harvey: It is not possible to identify separately the additional hours worked by staff as a result of the recent severe weather, but I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that we are very grateful to the staff of the House for their commitment and flexibility in ensuring that services to the House and its Committees continued as usual.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has stolen my thunder, because I was going to ask him if he would join me, and indeed the whole House, in praising the valuable work undertaken at a very difficult time by members of staff who came in, in very bad weather, worked quite late on occasions to replace those who were unable to come in, and enabled a functioning democratic process, such as that in our House of Commons, to continue despite the appalling weather conditions.

Nick Harvey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We are grateful to those members of staff who battled in against the weather conditions and to those who worked extra hours. The House takes business continuity very seriously and has done everything possible to learn the lessons of last winter.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

Members' Expenses

John Mann: When proposals will be brought forward to implement Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations on hon. Members' expenses; and if she will make a statement.

Barbara Keeley: In relation to those recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that were identified as requiring legislation, a written ministerial statement was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on 10 December 2009 detailing the Government's proposals for legislation. The House will have the opportunity to debate those proposals shortly.

John Mann: We have now got a real dog's breakfast from Sir Ian Kennedy, who has come up with a series of proposals that totally contradict Sir Christopher Kelly. Kennedy clearly does not understand the role of an MP-how he perceives it is more than 30 years out of date. Why are we not implementing Kelly's thought-through proposals in full, so that we can move beyond the problem of MPs' expenses?

Barbara Keeley: MPs did decide not to decide on their own allowances. We have legislated to make the Parliamentary Standards Authority independent, and that body is consulting. I note my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the issue, but that body is two or three weeks into its consultation. If he has strong concerns, which he clearly does, I would urge him and other right hon. and hon. Members to get involved in that consultation and tell the independent authority what they believe should be happening.

Edward Leigh: Does the deputy Leader of the House agree that if we are to build on the progress that we have made over 25 years in enabling women in particular to live with their families both in London as Members of Parliament and in their constituencies, it is vital that we should have an allowance system that facilitates that? Moving to a system whereby new Members would be forced to live in tiny state-run flats in London would not help families to stay together in London and their constituencies.

Barbara Keeley: As I have just pointed out, Members have opinions and comments that they want to make, and it is important that they should do so. Sir Ian Kennedy and some of the other IPSA board members were here for a meeting with Members on Monday. They are due to have three other meetings as part of their consultation. I urge the hon. Gentleman to make his points in one of those meetings or in writing, whichever he prefers.

Natascha Engel: I want to add my voice to the concerns expressed about weakening Christopher Kelly's proposals, which were welcomed by every person in this House-well, most people. The proposals outlined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority weaken his proposals on travel, employing relatives and the capital gains allowance. My hon. Friend really must keep an eye on the proposals coming out of IPSA, because they are deeply concerning to everybody.

Barbara Keeley: I have to keep re-emphasising that that body is independent. This is not the place to debate such matters. The place to talk about them is in the consultation, either in writing or at meetings; it is not in this Chamber.

Tony Baldry: Can the deputy Leader of the House explain to some of her colleagues that if Sir Christopher Kelly does not hold a proper consultation, any decision that he makes thereafter will be at risk of being challenged by judicial review? It is therefore in everyone's interest that, for future certainty, there should be a proper consultation, so that whatever proposals emerge are not vulnerable to being struck down by judicial review.

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. The consultation process that is being embarked upon is statutory. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 says which Members are to be consulted, but in addition to the specific consultees who are listed, for the first time there will also be a substantial consultation with the public. The public can express their views, Members can and should express theirs, and I urge people to take part in that consultation.

Private Bills

Peter Bone: If she will bring forward proposals for amendments to Standing Orders to reduce the number of private Bills introduced in a parliamentary Session.

Barbara Keeley: Private Bills enable individual local authorities to obtain legal powers that are additional to those generally given to them. Reducing the number of private Bills would mean denying that facility to local authorities or other bodies. Private Bills are also needed to deal with those bodies that are established under private Acts such as the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which can be amended only by private Bills. I therefore have no plans to bring forward changes to Standing Orders.

Peter Bone: I regret the response of the deputy Leader of the House. She is quite correct that large-scale projects such as the channel tunnel should be dealt with through private Bills. However, a lot of cities are currently trying to change the law on pedlars through private Bills, which is wasting parliamentary time. This afternoon we will spend another three hours on such Bills. Their number should be limited.

Barbara Keeley: I have figures for the length of time that was spent on private Bills in the 2007-08 Session: it was less than 0.5 per cent. of our sitting time. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot see the benefits of a localised approach that gives specific powers when they are needed. There tend to be only three or four private Bills each year, and they do help local authorities when they have specific issues.

Exchange Rate Movements (FCO)

David Lidington: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the impact of exchange rate movements on Foreign and Commonwealth Office programmes.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief statement. The total Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget comes in at roughly £2 billion, of which only £830 million is discretionary spend, as £1.1 billion is spent on subscriptions to international organisations, peacekeeping and counter-conflict funding, the BBC World Service and the British Council. There are significant challenges to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, not least because 50 per cent. of it is spent in foreign currency, and exchange rate volatility has made it difficult for the Foreign Office.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 7 December 2009 that the estimated impact, including that relating to the overseas pricing mechanism, comes to over £100 million in the financial year 2009-10. There has been quite a lot of speculation about what this means for counter-terrorism. The FCO's overseas counter-terrorism budget has increased significantly in recent years. In 2008-09, it was £35 million; in 2009-10, we will be spending £36.9 million, and we are projected to spend around £38 million in 2010-11.

David Lidington: What the Minister failed to confirm-I hope he will do so in a moment-was that his noble Friend Baroness Kinnock explained to the House of Lords yesterday that the Foreign Office was cutting its expenditure on counter-terrorism programmes in Pakistan and on anti-narcotics programmes in Afghanistan, not through any reassessment of strategic priorities but because of the movement of exchange rates and the Government's overall debt crisis. That is not the way to run an effective foreign policy. It is appalling that, yesterday, we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister standing in the House of Commons talking about fighting terrorism, while at the same time in the House of Lords, his Minister was admitting that debt and exchange rate problems meant that the Government were cutting the very counter-terrorist programmes to which they attach such importance in their public statements. That suggests that we have a Government-and, in particular, a Prime Minister-who are indifferent to the point of negligence towards the global interests of the United Kingdom.
	I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he explain how the Government got themselves into this mess? We know that the problem started with the decision to end the overseas price mechanism and to transfer exchange rate risk from the Treasury to the Foreign Office. Did Ministers not understand what harm might be done to Britain's international interests as a consequence of that decision, and why did the present Foreign Secretary allow it to happen on his watch?
	Secondly, what is the scale of the damage done so far? Can the Minister confirm the figure given to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee by his permanent secretary-namely, that the cost to the FCO in 2008-09 was £60 million, and Baroness Kinnock's statement yesterday that the shortfall has risen to £110 million in the current financial year and is set to rise further in 2010-11? Will the Minister also confirm that that figure adds up to about a quarter of the budget for the FCO's core activities, once the ring-fenced budgets for the British Council and the BBC World Service have been stripped out?
	We know from the permanent secretary's evidence that, as a consequence of this, the FCO has now "stopped most training" and put some staff on involuntary unpaid leave or four-day weeks. We know from what Baroness Kinnock said yesterday that there have been reductions in conflict prevention work in Africa and in climate change programmes-again those to which Ministers have said publicly that they attach great importance. Is it not time for the Government to come clean about what they are doing and to make public a full list of the cuts they are imposing as a result of the debacle of their exchange rate policy?
	Thirdly, what are Ministers' intentions for the future? I have seen an internal FCO memorandum from December last year that says
	"further cuts could and should not be achieved by salami slicing",
	but instead by stopping activity, closing posts and reducing staff numbers. Officials have apparently been instructed to work up contingency plans for substantial cuts, which
	"could be implemented soon after the election".
	As always, the difficult decisions are postponed.
	The memorandum also states that this plan was discussed with the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team on 21 December 2009. Did the Minister and his colleagues approve this strategy? In particular, how far has work now proceeded on a contingency list of British posts overseas that now face closure? How many of our embassies face the axe because of the Government's decisions on exchange rate risk, and when will Ministers finally come clean to the House and to the British people about what they are planning?

Chris Bryant: I shall respond first to the hon. Gentleman's questions about counter-terrorism, which I think is accepted by all Members as the overriding and single most important element of the work we have to do. The total amount of money we are spending on counter-terrorism is rising each year and the percentage of the amount we are spending on Pakistan has increased. Pakistan now receives 28 per cent. of the total amount of counter-terrorism spending; Afghanistan 13 per cent.; Saudi Arabia 7 per cent.; east Africa 7 per cent.; and Yemen 5 per cent. We believe that those are the appropriate priorities.
	The total spend on Pakistan has therefore gone up from £3.7 million in 2007-08 to £6.2 million in 2008-09, £8.3 million in 2009-10 and we project it to be somewhere between £9 million and £9.5 million in 2010-11. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have been able to increase that funding because we have taken the right economic decisions for this country. I have never heard from any shadow Treasury Ministers that they would even protect the Foreign Office budget, let alone increase it as we have over the last few years.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the overseas pricing mechanism. We have been completely open about the existence of a problem here, and I think that the hon. Gentleman must have written his comments before he heard what I said. I said quite clearly that the Foreign Secretary had replied to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, to whom I presume the hon. Gentleman occasionally talks. My right hon. Friend wrote to the right hon. Gentleman in December last year, saying that "the estimated impact" was going to be more than £100 million in 2009-10. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office spoke openly and clearly on this matter when questioned by the Foreign Affairs Committee. At no point has there been any element of trying to obfuscate or hide the situation we face from the House or the public. No final decisions have been made about next year's budget. There are ongoing discussions with the Treasury and I hope that they will be fruitful.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a list of posts that are going to be closed, whether some embassies are not protected and whether some work is going to come to an end. No, we believe it is vital to maintain our presence in the world, with Britain, as a great nation, making a significant difference around the world. We also believe that the overseas aid budget is an important part of the work we do in Pakistan. We are the second largest donor in the world, and will give £665 million over the period from 2009 to 2013. The hon. Gentleman can huff and puff as much as he wants about this, but unless he is prepared to make commitments about the Conservative party's funding after a general election, I do not think that anybody will take him seriously.

Edward Davey: How does the Minister square what he has told the House with what his ministerial colleague Baroness Kinnock said in the House of Lords yesterday? She said:
	"Counternarcotics programmes in Afghanistan, capacity building to help conflict prevention in Africa, and counterterrorism and counter-radicalisation in Pakistan have all been cut".-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2010; Vol. 716, c. 992.]
	In the light of the figures that have been given, is it not the case that the budget for counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation in Pakistan was much higher at the beginning of this financial year? Why did the Foreign Secretary not demand that the Chancellor and Prime Minister make good any funding gap to secure such important programmes?
	What representations have the British Government received from the United States or other allies in Europe and beyond about the impact of such dramatic cuts on our diplomatic efforts with them? If beating terrorism is the Government's top priority, they are clearly too shambolic to be trusted with the task. The country is at war to make Britain safe from terrorists. To do that, every military, political and diplomatic sinew should be strained. Our troops are risking their lives. If we do not put in the investment to counter the terrorist threat in Pakistan, we betray their efforts.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the situation. As I have made clear- [Interruption.] He can point to House of Lords  H ansard as often as he wants, but it will not make any difference to the facts. As I have articulated already, total counter-terrorism spending on Pakistan was £3.7 million in 2007-08, £6.2 million in 2008-09, £8.3 million in 2009-10, and we project next year's spending to be between £9 million and £9.5 million.
	The hon. Gentleman is right in one sense: of course we would like to be more ambitious, but we have had to curtail our ambitions in this field. On burden sharing in counter-terrorism, the work that we do in Afghanistan and the work that we have done in Iraq, the truth is that this country bears a substantial burden. We have received no representations or criticism from other countries in that regard.
	I find it a bit difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the protection of people in this country, because his party has systematically opposed every measure that we felt necessary in that respect.

Keith Vaz: As the Minister knows, Lord West, the counter-terrorism Minister, has said that the budget for the security services has increased to £3.5 billion, a 250 per cent. increase. What concerns me about Baroness Kinnock's comments is the possible impact on the joint visa operation between FCO and Home Office staff. Abdulmutallab was denied a visa to come to this country to attend a bogus college because of the good work of our entry clearance operation. Will the Minister assure the House that that will not be affected by suggestions concerning changes in the rate of exchange, as it is an important way of preventing from coming to this country people who should not be here?

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Foreign Office budget, and the £2 billion under discussion, is not the only budget that affects our relations with different countries. The UK Border Agency budget and the overseas development funding to Pakistan are also significant. We want to ensure that such funds are protected for aid and development, and are not siphoned off, as other parties have suggested, to deal with security issues. The figure does not include the funding of the Secret Intelligence Service, which is protected.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister calmly and clearly tell the House whether Baroness Kinnock's comments were accurate or not?

Chris Bryant: As I have said to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), Baroness Kinnock was right that the amount of money that we have spent on counter-terrorism in Pakistan has increased and will increase next year. There is not a cut; we will not spend less next year. However, we will be spending less than we had an ambition to spend.

Denis MacShane: Is this not an artificial hullaballoo? Obviously if the exchange rate goes down, things will cost more abroad-every one of our constituents finds that out after taking the Eurostar to Paris. During my eight years as parliamentary private secretary and a Minister, we were constantly closing and opening posts and reallocating budgets.
	I was shocked to learn that the actual real spend of the Foreign Office, as announced today, is £830 million, less than 1 per cent. of Government income. I think we should be spending more. However, the Conservatives have an answer: if they win power, they will shut everything down by isolating us from Europe and the rest of the world.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right. Ultimately, overall spending on our Foreign Office budget and, for that matter, all the budgets that affect our relations with other countries-including the budget of the Department for International Development-is a question for the whole of Government; and given the Conservatives' deliberate intention to cut budgets now, I do not think they have a leg to stand on.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister has now acknowledged that we are going to spend less than was intended. Let me remind him what the Prime Minister said yesterday:
	"The action that we are taking to counter terrorism at its source in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and elsewhere is a central part of our wider counter-terrorist strategy."-[ Official Report, 20 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 303.]
	May I ask the Minister why he did not include the information that there would be a real-terms cut in spending because of the exchange rate problem?

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing himself. He refers to a real-terms cut, but there will not be a real-terms cut.

Kelvin Hopkins: I applaud my hon. Friend's robust answers to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
	It is obvious that when our currency depreciates overseas costs go up, but does my hon. Friend agree that we must retain that degree of flexibility in our currency for broader economic reasons? Had we been stuck in the euro, we would now be in a disastrous situation, rather like that of Ireland. The Prime Minister must be congratulated on keeping us out of the euro all those years ago.

Chris Bryant: I had a sneaking suspicion that my hon. Friend might refer to this matter. I know from conversations with my counterparts in other Ministries of Foreign Affairs that they are experiencing similar difficult circumstances, because their currencies also vary in relation to other currencies in the world. The exchange rate between the US dollar and the euro has fluctuated significantly over the last two years, which has made things difficult for foreign affairs departments in other countries as well.

Douglas Hogg: Is not this matter another example of the Prime Minister's lack of candour? Yesterday he said:
	"We and our allies are still clear that the crucible of terrorism on the Afghan-Pakistan border remains the No. 1 security threat to the west." -[ Official Report, 20 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 305.]
	He went on to detail what he was seeking to do, but what he omitted to say was that projected spending-anticipated and desired spending-on that very matter was to be cut, as Lady Kinnock has now made plain. Why did the Prime Minister fail to give the House that information?

Chris Bryant: I reject that charge. We have been very open throughout the process. The Foreign Secretary answered questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the permanent under-secretary answered specifically on the issue of the overseas pricing mechanism.
	No final decisions have yet been made about next year's budget, but we are engaged in discussions with the Treasury, which has been immensely helpful in trying to examine the issues with us. We want to ensure not only that we meet our absolute priorities, but that all our spending is clearly devoted to those priorities. That is what we are focusing on.

Tony McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that the counter-terrorism spending of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has risen and will continue to do so, especially its spending on Pakistan. Does he agree that the current events are occurring in the context of the largest ever spend by this country-domestic and foreign-on the intelligence and security services, and the largest ever significant spend on developmental and military activities in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, at a time when the Pakistan Government are themselves finally getting to grips with counter-terrorism? In the narrow field of counter-terrorism, at least, the Opposition's charges are irresponsible partisan drivel.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right. Elements of the work we have done have not been as effective as we would have liked, and of course we constantly review the question of which are the right things to do. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that much of DFID's work in its overall £665 million spend in Pakistan has been focused on education programmes and support for better economic management in Governments, which, I would argue, has had an effect on counter-terrorism as well.

Stewart Hosie: I am sure the Minister would agree that anxiety has been caused by the apparent contradictions between Baroness Kinnock's statement, his statement today on rising budgets, and the reported shortfall of £110 million. However, he did say that he wishes to be open, so can he arrange for a root-and-branch review to be carried out of the FCO's foreign currency exchange operations, including a very close look at how-and, indeed, whether-they hedge against losses? It seems ridiculous to me that a Government the size of this one cannot take the necessary simple steps to minimise the losses from foreign exchange movements.

Chris Bryant: Significant elements of Government spend have, in fact, been assisted by the fluctuation in the value of the pound-my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to that. It has also made it much cheaper for foreign visitors to come to the UK. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to suggest that we have to keep this process under constant review. We must also make sure we get the best value for money around the world by balancing how many UK staff we have in different overseas posts, and how many locally employed staff we have, while still maintaining a core team effort across the whole of our presence.

Shailesh Vara: I appreciate that there are sensitivities in providing detailed information on the impact of exchange rate fluctuations on British expenditure on counter-intelligence and security measures. However, will the Minister undertake to provide a full list of other areas where exchange rates have an impact, such as staffing? Will he place such a list in the Library for everybody to look at, detailing which countries, embassies and high commissions will be affected?

Chris Bryant: To be honest, I think that would be very burdensome to produce, and it would be a constantly changing document anyway. I am more than happy to be open with the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that what he suggests would be helpful. A lot of the British Council's spend is also overseas, so it has faced a difficult time in relation to currency fluctuation as well, whereas the World Service, the vast majority of whose spending is in this country, has not met these problems.

Greg Hands: There is also the important question of the hedging of the risk. Can the Minister tell us whether any hedging has taken place since the abolition of the mechanism in 2007, and if so, how much of the 50 per cent. foreign exchange expenditure has indeed been hedged and how it has been hedged? If it has been hedged properly, the gains on the hedge should offset the losses outlined by Baroness Kinnock yesterday.

Chris Bryant: The process of hedging happens within financial years, and I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the shadow Foreign Secretary about this before Christmas.

Paul Goodman: As the Minister knows, some of the programmes in Pakistan are anti-radicalisation programmes; they are essentially extensions of the Prevent programme here. Has an assessment been made of the effectiveness of these programmes, and whether or not that is the case, will they be cut?

Chris Bryant: We always have to review the success of such projects. One of the difficulties is that some of the elements of them deliver outcomes only over a sustained period. Consequently, it is difficult at one snapshot moment to assess the precise value and the impact they are having, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that that is one of the things we need to do, and if elements of the programme do not work, we should cut them back and find other ways of engaging that are more effective.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Minister respond to his Front-Bench counterpart in respect of the description of the exchange policy as a debacle? It is, in fact, especially well timed to have a devaluation when there is excess capacity, as we get low inflation. Also, if there has indeed been hedging, as the Minister said in response to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), does he not accept that it is his responsibility to ensure that money is recouped into this budget and is fully protected?

Chris Bryant: In the Foreign Office, we also have to do a bit of good housekeeping. We are reviewing, and discussing with trade unions, the allowances paid to UK staff based abroad and those working for the Foreign Office in the UK. Where savings can be made that are consonant with ensuring there is a high level of morale in the Foreign Office and we deliver value for money, we will make them.

William Cash: As the Minister will know, the debates on fiscal responsibility that took place in the last few days have demonstrated the fiscal irresponsibility of what he describes as a great nation. He and his Government have brought this country to its knees.
	In the context of the issue before us now, the results of setting up European embassies, and also Europol, in Afghanistan, which were discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee only a couple of days ago, are part of this problem. There has been a failure there because we are putting money in the wrong places. We should be using British money for British purposes, and not spending money on completely pointless operations that are not working effectively.

Chris Bryant: As much as I like the hon. Gentleman, I completely and utterly disagree with him. I believe that if we had not taken the necessary financial steps that we took over the last 18 months, and instead had taken his advice and that of his political party, this country and others that have followed similar routes would have ended up in a slump or a depression. I believe the decisions we have made have put us in a stronger position for the future, and I think we will be seeing precisely that over the coming days. I should just say, too, that across the whole of Government, spending on counter-terrorism in Pakistan increased by 50 per cent. from the last financial year to this one.

Philip Hollobone: Can the Minister confirm whether in times past, when exchange rates were the other way round, the Treasury clawed back any surplus? If it did so, does that not go straight to the heart of the argument and suggest that the Treasury should come to the rescue this time?

Chris Bryant: Well, it does not quite work like that, but the way it does work was set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a letter to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, and I think it would help the whole House if I were to lay a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us next week's business?

Harriet Harman: The provisional business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 25 January-Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.
	Tuesday 26 January-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 4).
	Wednesday 27 January-Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on dementia services and care of the elderly, followed by a debate on out-of-hours care. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 28 January-Topical debate: Subject to be announced; to follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration.
	Friday 29 January-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 1 February will include:
	Monday 1 February-Remaining stages of the Flood and Water Management Bill.
	Tuesday 2 February-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 5).
	Wednesday 3 February-Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Thursday 4 February-Remaining stages of the Corporation Tax Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill.
	Friday 5 February-Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4 February will be:
	Thursday 4 February-A debate from the Joint Committee on Human Rights entitled "Demonstrating Respect for Rights? A Human Rights Approach to Policing Protest".

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. Further to the exchanges that have just taken place, which she might have heard, it struck me that a number of issues were left hanging in the air, so I think it might be helpful to have a debate in Government time on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget.
	May I repeat my request for a debate on Haiti? The tragic events there have been the most terrifying humanitarian disaster witnessed in recent years, and apart from a very short exchange at Department for International Development questions yesterday, the House has not had an opportunity properly to debate it, so will she take this as a suggestion, yet again, for next week's topical debate?
	Further to the exchange of a few moments ago about the Wright report, may I say that I am delighted that at long last the Government have belatedly accepted some of our arguments for strengthening and reforming Parliament, and that we welcome them to the table? The Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate on 23 February, but what really matters is not what the Government have decided-she told us what that was-but what the House decides. She has denied the House an opportunity to debate this until 23 February, some three months after the Wright Committee reported, and there is no good reason for that delay.
	May I again press the Leader of the House for a clear commitment on the question that I asked a few moments ago? If, for the sake of argument, the House agrees on 23 February to the setting up of a Back-Bench business committee-I hope that it will agree to such a committee-can she assure the House that all the necessary changes to Standing Orders will be made before Dissolution, so that at the beginning of the next Parliament, irrespective of who has won, we can establish a Back-Bench business committee? I hope that she can give me and the House that clear commitment.
	Mr. Speaker, may we play another round of the popular panel game that the Leader of the House hosts each week, "Guess the date of the Easter recess", which still awaits a winner? I have asked seven times why she has been unable to supply the date in the usual way and, although she does not pause and she does not hesitate, she is extremely repetitive. Can she give us the Easter countdown today? Can she also tell the House when the Chancellor will present his Budget?
	Can the right hon. and learned Lady clarify what is going on with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? She has announced two more days for consideration, but there is confusion about whether one of those days will be wasted on debating the alternative vote, when we might be debating the Wright report. Yesterday, the Prime Minister appeared to embrace voting reform, but only three days ago it was reported that the parliamentary Labour party was split down the middle, with the Schools Secretary lobbying against any amendment to the Bill. What is going on? Are we going to debate it? On what side of that dividing line does she lie?
	May we have a statement on the Government's nutrition action plan? This was promised by December 2008, but we are now in 2010 and that report has still not been published. All the evidence shows that the incidence of malnutrition in our hospitals is getting worse, not better, so when can the House expect to debate that report? May we also have a debate on the performance of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? According to the National Audit Office, the department failed to answer 44 million calls last year, with just one in three inquiries being responded to at busy times, such as when tax credits need to be renewed. Vulnerable people cannot afford to be put on hold, so when can we have a debate about that?
	Finally, may we have a debate on the speech on inequality that the right hon. and learned Lady is due to make tomorrow? The whole country will be bewildered by the total confusion in the Government's strategy on this. One week we are told that the Prime Minister wants to soak the rich, the next week, following a conversation with Lord Mandelson, he is promising support for middle Britain and now the right hon. and learned Lady is promising to open up a new front in the class war. Is this confusion due to the Labour party manifesto being dreamt up on the hockey fields of St. Paul's?

Harriet Harman: I join the right hon. Gentleman in acknowledging the great importance of the international effort to tackle the appalling suffering that has followed the earthquake in Haiti. I wish to pay tribute to the search and rescue teams that have gone out from this country and to say how important the Department for International Development aid contribution is, not only in terms of the search and rescue effort, but of the assessment of and contribution towards the reconstruction that will be required. I should also say how important the incredible generosity of the British public is. I believe that about £20 million of additional aid has been pledged immediately by DFID, but that about £26 million has come from donations by individual members of the public, not only those who have relatives and friends in Haiti, but other good-hearted people who want to help do their part in alleviating the suffering. Not everything good that happens is done by government.
	Last week, we made a statement on Haiti and this week, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we had DFID questions and the issue was also addressed in Prime Minister's questions. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to keep the House updated on Government and international action, and we need an opportunity for Members to contribute. I shall look for an opportunity, in some form or another, for Haiti to be debated on the Floor of the House next week.
	On the Wright Committee, yes, of course, what is important is what the House decides. Although I think that it is perfectly right and proper that we place before the people at the general election a big choice of an alternative view as to how Britain goes forward, with the Tories on one side and us on the other-and the other parties in the fray too-when it comes to the way this House operates, we should surely be able to work together, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said earlier, to try to make progress. I shall offer to have plenty of fights with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on many issues and on many occasions, but can we just try to work together sensibly on this, because on 23 February we might be able to make some progress? Rather than spending a lot of time saying, "Why is it on 23 February, rather than 23 January?", let us get on with working together to ensure that we make our 23 February debate an opportunity to make progress. If we make progress then, we will, as I said earlier in questions to the Leader of the House, be able to pass resolutions that put into effect the proposals from the Wright Committee, so that they can begin in operation before the House rises.
	As far as Easter is concerned, it is on 4 April.
	On the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill-I shall call it the CRAG Bill, as I keep getting the name wrong-we have had a full day on Second Reading and three days on the Floor of the House for the Committee stage already. We have two further days on the Floor of the House, thus making five days in Committee. We have a day on Report and Third Reading, which makes seven days in all. A number of Committees have looked at this Bill, including a Committee of both Houses that looked at the draft Bill, so this House will have given it thorough scrutiny, and the proposals that will be introduced by way of Government amendments or new clauses will be brought forward in the normal way.
	On HMRC and tax credits, the right hon. Gentleman can be sure that we are pledged to continue to improve tax credits, which make a very big difference to families on middle and modest incomes. We want to support those who are working, and working hard, by topping up their income with tax credits, and we will continue to support the way that that is distributed.
	On equality, it is clear from reading the statement that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made just before last week on race and socio-economic inequality or the Government response via the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Milburn report on access to the professions, as well as the Department of Health's report on health inequalities-the Marmot report-that will be considered soon or the very important report from the National Equality Panel, which is chaired by Sir John Hills, which will be published next week, that this Government is in no doubt that this country ought to be a place where everyone, no matter what their family background, no matter whether they are a man or a women and no matter what their ethnic origin, can achieve their full potential. We should have a fair society where everyone can fulfil their aspirations, not one held back by prejudice or discrimination. The Hills report will show that we have halted the inequality that increased so badly in the '80s and '90s, but we have to take more action to eradicate it, for the sake of not only every individual, but of having a prosperous economy and a peaceful society.

David Heath: May I welcome the indication that the Leader of the House gave that there would be a debate on Haiti? In her response on that issue, she mentioned the exchanges at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions. May I say that it was hugely welcome that the Prime Minister made a short statement on Haiti, and did so in considerable detail? However may I put it to the Leader of the House that there is a growing tendency for Ministers and, in particular, the Prime Minister to use short Question Times to make what are, in effect, statements, and that that is not helpful to Back Benchers who want to put questions? If there is a statement to be made, will the right hon. and learned Lady encourage her right hon. Friends to make it as a statement rather than using Question Time to do so?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister was also asked a very pertinent question, it seemed to me, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) about the takeover of Cadbury. The Prime Minister's answer was-how can I put it-a little bit "Curly Wurly", and possibly even "Flake-y". May we have a statement from the relevant Department on the role of the Royal Bank of Scotland-a bank owned by the British people-in providing the finance for a takeover of a British company by an American conglomerate? That issue must be answered.
	May I welcome the additional day that has now been provided-I had a bit to say about this when we debated the programme motion on Tuesday-for consideration of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? However, the right hon. and learned Lady has still not answered the question put by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House. Will she simply say, without equivocation, whether a Government amendment on the reform of our electoral system will be tabled for debate in Committee? Yes or no? She must have decided by now, surely; it has been fought over for weeks. Will she tell us whether there will be such a Government amendment?
	May we have a debate on the continuing problem, which I know affects a lot of Members on both sides of the House, of funding in further education and the activities of the Learning and Skills Council? After the fiasco of last year, a huge number of decisions are waiting on a backlog of schemes that were given provisional support but on which the funding has not been confirmed. That delay affects a college in my constituency, Frome community college, and the college is now desperate to know whether the scheme, which is supposed to be going ahead this year, can go ahead and whether the funding will be provided. May we have a debate on that?
	May I return to a point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire? The Leader of the House has answered, very helpfully, with the date of Easter. I am personally not terribly interested in the dates of the Easter recess, but I am very interested to know when the Budget will be. Will she tell us what the date of the Budget will be?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned statements and the question of Haiti. As I have said, we had a full statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on Haiti and I think that it was important for the Prime Minister to update the House yesterday during Prime Minister's questions. It is important not just that we hear from the Secretary of State but that the Prime Minister has the opportunity to update the House. The Prime Minister has made an unprecedented number of statements in the House on a range of issues and we will continue to keep the House informed on action in Haiti.
	As for the Cadbury's debate, I would certainly not want to give a "Flake-y" response. Perhaps I can give a "Crunchie" response and tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be an Adjournment debate on the matter on the Floor of the House next week. This is an important issue because people are concerned not only about their pride in this historic brand but, above all, about the work that is generated for 5,500 people in factories up and down the country. It will be debated on the Floor of the House next week.
	On the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, the Secretary of State for Justice will bring forward amendments and new clauses in the normal way. This is not an occasion for the announcement of Government new clauses on individual Bills.
	On the Learning and Skills Council, I shall ask Business Ministers to look into the case of Frome community college. We all recognise that despite the fact that there has been a great deal of important extra funding for further and higher education, the LSC presided over mismanagement on that very important programme, which is only just being sorted out. I shall ask Ministers to look into the case of that college but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that Frome community college and all other further and higher education would not prosper if his party had its way and introduced savage cuts.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Twenty-seven right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I should like to be able to accommodate everybody, but if I am to have any chance of doing so, I shall require the help of the House in the form of short questions and short answers.

Hazel Blears: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can clear something up for me. On 4 January, the Leader of the Opposition said that giving married couples a tax break was
	"something we want to do, something we believe we can do"
	and
	"something...I'll definitely hope to do".
	Will my right hon. and learned Friend provide time on the Floor of the House for a debate on married couple's allowance so that we can all be enlightened about the difference between a promise, a belief, an aspiration, a pledge and any other word that might describe the Leader of the Opposition's policy?

Harriet Harman: I note that the Opposition have not chosen the married couple's allowance as the topic for their Opposition day debate next week. One thing that my right hon. Friend's question brings out is the fact that families cannot rely on the Opposition. They can rely on this Government to back them up. We would not penalise women who get divorced and we would not use a tax penalty to penalise men who find themselves divorced. We want to support families in all shapes and sizes, including not only families made up of parents and children but grandparents, who play an important role.

Edward Leigh: The Leader of the House will know of the work of the Liaison Committee in improving financial scrutiny in this House, which has led to the alignment project in the Treasury, which I welcome. As we will debate increasing the powers of Select Committees on 23 February, will she say that she is at least open-minded-I am not asking for a commitment-about giving Select Committees more resources through the Scrutiny Unit and eventually more powers through substantive motions to control spending in the House of Commons, which was a traditional function of the House of Commons?

Harriet Harman: The Wright Committee made some recommendations in that regard and when we come to the debate on 23 February, that issue can be thoroughly aired.

Jacqui Smith: May I push my right hon. and learned Friend on the subject of a debate about support for families so that I can raise the concerns of working parents across Redditch-married and unmarried-who fear that they will lose the little bit of help that comes from their tax credit, as well as access to Redditch's children's centres, so that funding can be given to an unthought-through and ill-conceived tax break to encourage them up the aisle?

Harriet Harman: It might well be a good idea to have a debate on this issue. On that occasion, we will ask the Opposition to explain whether they think that any couple has got married thinking, "Well, we weren't going to get married but we will get married now because we have heard that there will be a tax break." Relationships do not work like that and there is no evidence that couples can be made to stay happy together simply on the basis of a tax break. The point about the proposed tax break is that it will not work when it comes to making families happy together. However, it will penalise those who find that their marriage has failed and stigmatise children in families who have not stayed together. Such a debate might be a good opportunity to air the subject on the Floor of the House.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on immigration? On Monday, the Bradford  Telegraph and Argus reported how the Somali man who hid the killer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky won his appeal against deportation on the grounds of human rights, rightly angering the family of Sharon Beshenivsky and the West Yorkshire police federation. Surely, when the Government passed the Human Rights Act, they did not have it in mind that it would stop Somali nationals who hide the killers of police officers from being deported from the country.

Harriet Harman: The Human Rights Act is a matter for interpretation by the courts, but whenever the Government believe that an interpretation by the courts has crossed the line and interfered with national security, we do not hesitate to take action either to appeal or to amend the substantive law.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate in parliamentary time on the subject of regional spatial strategies and their current status, particularly in the south-west, where we have been waiting for them for quite some time? As we have been waiting, local authorities such as Stroud district council have been working with speculators and developers to dump their entire housing allocations on the end of places such as Tuffley in the Gloucester district area. Clarity, an early debate and early decisions would be very helpful.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps that is something that my hon. Friend, who I know strongly supports the communities living in his constituency, can raise in Communities and Local Government questions next week.

Nicholas Winterton: I indicated earlier at Question Time that I welcomed the debate on the reform of the House, and that I shall certainly support the motions to be tabled by the Leader of the House. However, will she admit that there is ongoing concern that the House Committee that she has announced will deal only with Back-Bench business and not with the overall business of the House? Does she accept that there has been no mention as yet of the reduction or removal of guillotines-programme motions-on the remaining stages of a Bill? Those stages are very important for Back Benchers who were not part of the Public Bill Committee and were not called to speak in the Second Reading debate.

Harriet Harman: The Wright Committee made a great many proposals on a wide range of issues, and recognised that they needed to be taken forward step by step. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: what I said in my comments this morning, and what the Prime Minister said yesterday, was that we had identified the need for a House Committee for Back-Bench business to be brought forward. I hope that we can agree that on 23 February. I also hope that those who think that we should have a House Committee for Government business will not make the best the enemy of the good, and that we can achieve a wide range of agreement the next time we debate the matter on 23 February.

Martin Salter: I am sure that the Leader of the House remains a committed reformer of Parliament, but the Prime Minister made the incredible commitment yesterday that he would implement all three tranches of the Wright Committee report. Will she assure the House that there will be an immediate vote as well as a full debate on 23 February on the resolution that the Wright Committee prepared, rather than any other device?

Harriet Harman: Actually, there are four tranches, as follows: the Chairs of Select Committees to be elected by the House, the membership of Select Committees, private Members' motions that can be brought to the House to be debated and voted on, and the question of the House Committee. We want to take the opportunity to debate those matters and then adopt resolutions to give them effect. If, as I hope and expect, there is consensus in the House on those four areas, we want to get work under way. The point is to make a start on those matters over which there is the widest possible agreement.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. and learned Lady will have heard the evidence given to the Chilcot inquiry by the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), to the effect that it was the decisions of the present Prime Minister that resulted in British forces going to war in Iraq under-resourced, and in the lack of helicopters in Afghanistan. She will also have heard the Prime Minister's statement that he is willing to give evidence to the inquiry before the general election. Can we have a debate next week so that the House can encourage Sir John Chilcot to call the Prime Minister to give an account of his activities before the general election?

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Chilcot inquiry operates under the general procedures that usually govern such inquiries. Sir John Chilcot has said that he will take as much of the evidence in public as he can without risking national security. The Prime Minister has said that he will give evidence as and when requested to do so. We should leave it to the members of the independent Chilcot inquiry to get on with their work, and not constantly breathe down their necks or tell them whom they should call, and when. We should not try to discuss the results of the inquiry before it has even produced a report.

Ann Cryer: May we have an early debate on a possible conflict of interest in the Office of the Rail Regulator? The ORR has responsibility for both investment and safety, but we now discover that 1,500 front-line workers are to be made redundant by Network Rail. Those people have responsibility for track inspection and maintenance, overhead cabling and signalling, all of which are crucial to the safety of the railways for passengers and rail workers. Could we therefore have a look at this conflict of interest?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is a great champion of rail users. She has urged that more freight as well as more passengers should go by rail, and she is also a great champion of those who work on the railways. Perhaps I could suggest that she raise the issues that she has brought to the House today with Ministers at Transport questions next week.

Evan Harris: The Wright Committee, which was elected by this House, addressed itself to the problems that arise at Report stage, when key groups of amendments go undebated and key decisions on legislation are not even put to the House. In its conclusions, the Committee said that
	"we recognise that unless the current problems in this area are resolved, then there will continue to be dissatisfaction and a sense that the House is failing to perform one of its core duties. In those circumstances, we will have failed one of the primary parts of our mission."
	Does the Leader of the House agree?

Harriet Harman: Well, I agree that we should do everything that we can to make sure that all aspects of a Bill are scrutinised at all stages, but to some extent that is in the hands of the House. One thing that I will never understand is why people who justifiably complain about the lack of time to debate substantive issues use up loads of time on procedural motions. If we used that time to debate the substantive issues, we would reach more conclusions.

Tony Wright: This is normally a session for complaints and demands, so may I simply say that I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about a secure date for the House to consider the report from the House of Commons Reform Committee? In addition, I endorse her hope that the House will want to operate on a consensual basis, and that there will be a mechanism enabling it to come to some firm decisions.

Harriet Harman: I am glad to have the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his very important work in proposing the Committee. His effective leadership has brought the Committee very quickly to some profound and radical solutions. I think that Members of this House can have major arguments, debates, disagreements and rows about the economy, public services and the sort of society that we want in the future, but I hope that we can at least agree on a non-partisan basis about how to ensure that the House works better in future.

Peter Bone: My concern about the Wright report is that the consensus will be between the Executive and the shadow Executive, and that it will not take the views of Back Benchers into account. The consensus must be across the House, and not just between the two Executives.

Harriet Harman: I hope that we can build a consensus across the whole House based on the proposals made by the Wright Committee, which is a Back-Bench Committee. I do not think that any of its members would say that they were responding to pressure from either the Executive or the shadow Executive, and they would give anyone who suggested that a dusty answer. The Wright Committee is made up of Back Benchers, and we have responded to their proposals by saying, "Fair enough, let's get on with implementing a great many of them."

Gordon Prentice: Do the Government intend to bring in a stand-alone Bill to deal with non-doms in Parliament, or will the Government rely on amending the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill?

Harriet Harman: We are determined to make sure that people who are not prepared to be registered as taxpayers domiciled in this country cannot purport to represent taxpayers in constituencies or legislate in the House of Lords in ways that affect taxpayers. The only real question-my hon. Friend has adverted to it-concerns the right vehicle for bringing the matter to the House. We expect to reach a conclusion on that shortly and to bring it to the House.

Ann Winterton: Notwithstanding the fact that there will be a defence review in the next Parliament, whoever wins the general election, may we have a debate on future defence policy in the light of the thought-provoking speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards? We need such a debate not least because of the profound implications for the three services, and for procurement in particular.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady will know that we have regular defence debates. There will probably be one next month, so perhaps she can amplify her comments then.

Natascha Engel: I, too, welcome the announcement of a debate on the Wright Committee report on 23 February. Normally, honourable parliamentarians on both sides of the House would share my disdain when changes are introduced to legislation or to the procedures of the House on a nod and a wink and under the cloak of consensus, but that does not apply in this case. I was a member of the Committee and I was not part of that consensus. Will my right hon. and learned Friend guarantee that none of the proposals will be introduced without a full debate on every issue? I do not share the consensus on electing the Chairs and members of Select Committees, or on the establishment of a House business committee. I have deep concerns about those proposals, and I want a full debate on them. I am not part of this consensus.

Harriet Harman: There will be a full debate, and I hope that there will be reassurances on my hon. Friend's concerns. I know that she played a full part in the Committee, but following its majority decisions, we would like to see changes made in the four areas that I have identified.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Infrastructure Planning Commission is about to receive an application from Hinkley Point in Somerset. Everything is going well, and I am very grateful for the Government's support, but we have hit a snag. The relevant Department also has to do its own consultation, and it is not doing it properly. Can we please have time to debate that? Unless the IPC gets the application right, the application could be knocked back or, worse still, undermine the whole IPC system. Can we have time to discuss that?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman could raise that issue in Communities and Local Government questions next week and obtain an answer from the Secretary of State or one of the Ministers in that Department.

Derek Twigg: May we have an early debate about debt, debt collection and, in particular, the activities of bailiffs? I have received an increasing number of complaints from constituents, many of them young single mums, about the intimidating and bullying behaviour of debt collectors. Although people should pay back their debt, they should not be subject to such behaviour. One of the big issues is that people do not understand their rights in terms of access to their homes, so can we have a debate as soon as possible about that issue?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, about which a number of hon. Members might be concerned, so in the first instance he might seek a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.

Philip Hollobone: May we have a statement from the fire services Minister about the tremendously good work that British firefighters, who are specialists in urban search and rescue, are doing in Haiti? I had the privilege of visiting their state-of-the-art training facility at Moreton-in-Marsh in Gloucestershire, and their tremendously good work really should be commended.

Harriet Harman: I am sure that everybody agrees with those sentiments. If the hon. Gentleman wants a further chance to question Communities and Local Government Ministers, he should take up the opportunity next week at Communities and Local Government questions.

Julie Morgan: There has been a further welcome fall in the unemployment figures for Wales this week, but many of my constituents will suffer from the announcement that Bosch, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), will close with the loss of 900 jobs. When can we have a debate not only about the very welcome measures that the Government have introduced to help people who lose their jobs, but to discuss what more can be done?

Harriet Harman: We remain very concerned about the jobs question, which is very much at the top of our agenda, and I shall refer to the Business Secretary and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the points that my hon. Friend has made. I agree with her about how important it is that, for the first time, unemployment has gone down-based not only on the claimant count, but on the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate. That is in marked contrast with previous recessions, when unemployment went up dramatically and continued to rise long after the economy had returned to growth. That shows, in a reversal of the Tory election slogan, that Labour is working.

Andrew Murrison: The Leader of the House will be aware of increasing public concern at excessive bank charges and the Office of Fair Trading's decision to throw in the towel. Can we have a debate, in Government time, about the Government's failure to extract a voluntary agreement? They promised that they would extract one from the banks, but they have so far failed.

Harriet Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need strong regulation and regulatory bodies to protect consumers. We have no doubt about that; it is his party, generally speaking, that regards such measures as the nanny state, as a burden on business and as a surfeit of regulation. However, if he wants to support our stance of leaving no stone unturned to protect consumers and ensure the right regulations, he can work with us to achieve it.

Richard Caborn: May I reinforce the request for a debate about married couples' tax breaks, a policy that contrasts starkly with the concerns of my constituents, who have benefited hugely from child tax credits and the child trust fund? My constituents are greatly concerned by such "back to basics" Victorian standards. The real worry is that the Leader of the Opposition is becoming more and more a captive of the right-wing of his party, which, as I have said, contrasts very much with this Government's approach to tax breaks for the family.

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. It is a modern-day version of "back to basics"-it is "back to basics" with an open-necked shirt. People want good support for families, which come in all shapes and sizes, and we rightly have child tax credits, child trust funds and Sure Start centres. Those are the practical measures that help families make their way in life, and it does not help families to be told by politicians of any Government that they should get married and stay happily married. No Government's Ministers have all been able to manage that, so how can we tell people, through tax relief, that they should be able to do so?

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to you for calling me towards the end of these proceedings, Mr. Speaker, which saves my having to go to the gym, which I need to go to because I have been eating too much chocolate. Everyone keeps referring to chocolate, but that is very dangerous. Fudge is obviously the chocolate of choice for us here; the Leader of the House obviously has a soft caramel centre; and I have a close connection with Frank Muir's and Cadbury's "Fruit and Nut Case".
	To be serious, I must say that we can benefit from more people visiting the Palace of Westminster, but unfortunately, as we tell visitors, it has a habit of burning down. Bearing in mind that there is now a different line of route, through Westminster Hall, what can be done to ensure that there are proper facilities to advise people of any emergency, and that we are able to detect fires as early as possible?

Harriet Harman: That is an important issue not just for Members, but for those who work for Members, all other staff and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, people who visit. The House has a detailed programme of works to make the whole parliamentary estate compliant with fire safety legislation. That programme is based on an assessment of fire risk and is planned to be completed over a number of years. It includes the installation of automatic fire detection and voice alarm systems, fire compartmentalisation and detailed services. I shall ask the House authorities to write to him with further information.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). There are also serious concerns about the feeble performance of the rail franchise companies-especially First Capital Connect-about the ordering of new rolling stock from foreign producers rather than British-based producers and about the future, given the inadequacies of, and cuts in, rail freight capacity. We need a wide-ranging, general debate about the whole railway industry.

Harriet Harman: Transport questions take place next week, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has raised broader issues that go beyond an oral question to the Minister during that session. I shall therefore consider the issues that my hon. Friend has put forward, possibly for a topical debate.

Andrew Rosindell: It should come as no surprise to the Leader of the House that immigration is one of the British people's top concerns, having had 13 years of our immigration system's shambolic mismanagement by the current Government. Will she make time for a debate about the subject? If we do not tackle it, the gainers will be those on the far right, whom none of us wants to succeed.

Harriet Harman: The House considers immigration regularly, not only in statements but in questions, and the Prime Minister answered a question about it from the hon. Gentleman yesterday. However, I shall keep under review the question of whether there should be a full and further debate.

Tony Lloyd: Clause 1 of the Equality Bill gives legislative backing to my right hon. and learned Friend's words a few moments ago about the impact of socio-economic class in our society, and the importance of making not simply a statement about but a reality of Britain as a nation where no child is limited by, among other things, their socio-economic class, which has disfigured this nation for so long. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the Equality Bill, which is now in the Lords, will come back with that part intact, so that we can say to the British people that it is a Labour Government who have put that legislation into practice?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We considered the Equality Bill in the House of Commons, and we included in it clause 1, which requires all public authorities, when taking big decisions and taking action, to consider how they play their part in narrowing the gap between rich and poor and making for a more fair and equal society. Despite the fact that the Tories voted in Committee against that measure for social mobility and for people to achieve their aspirations, the Bill has gone to the House of Lords, and I fully expect it to come back to the House of Commons with that clause in it. We want to see a more fair and equal society. We have made a lot of progress, but more progress needs to be made.

Tobias Ellwood: May I underline the calls for a debate on Haiti and British involvement and support there? Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that a decision has been made to send the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Largs Bay to the Caribbean. It will take three weeks for that ship to arrive. We already have a ship there, HMS Iron Duke, which has marines on board, helicopter support and so forth. It could provide assistance immediately instead of waiting for three weeks. I urge the Leader of the House to allow us to have a debate on Haiti immediately.

Harriet Harman: As I have said, we have had a statement and the Prime Minister's response on this. I would hate the hon. Gentleman to give the wrong impression to people who care so much about the fact that we should do everything we can to help people faced by the devastation in Haiti. We are providing immediate assistance with our search and rescue teams out there. We provided immediate additional resources to the international aid effort, so we are not waiting three weeks. However, we recognise that the effort to help people in Haiti will need to go on for much longer than the immediate crisis period. Therefore, we will be fully engaged with the need to plan not only for the immediate term but for the next months and, indeed, years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

David Drew: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for an urgent debate on the role of the Governor of the Bank of England? Will the board-that is, the Cabinet-consider giving him the football manager's vote of confidence, so that we can get someone in who actually knows about the economy such as David "Danny" Blanchflower?

Harriet Harman: We all heard David Blanchflower's comments. Labour Members support the idea that there should be public investment to ensure that the recovery in the economy takes root, so that we do not take any risk with the recovery and threaten it by pulling the plug on public investment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am pleased to tell the House that after the exchanges between the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House, 27 Members from the Back Benches who wished to contribute to business questions were able to do so in the period of 28 minutes occupied by those Back-Bench exchanges. That shows what can be done when the spirit is willing, both among those Back Benchers and, indeed, very creditably and fortunately, on the part of the Leader of the House. I am grateful to the House for its co-operation.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Video Recordings Act 2010
	Beverley Freemen Act 2010.

Point of Order

Philip Hollobone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice about the conduct of business for the rest of the day? I see from the Order Paper that the next debate is going to run for one and a half hours, which would take us to about quarter past 2, but the business after that does not start until 3 o'clock. Will you advise the House on why the Leader of the House and the appropriate authorities have not made appropriate provision for the efficient conduct of business today?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think that I am right in saying that the requirement that the private Bills set down for debate this day should begin at 3 pm is a requirement of the Standing Orders of the House. That is, I hope, the conclusive answer to question posed by the hon. Gentleman.

Barbara Keeley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House tabled a motion to vary that requirement for today, so that we would have been able to start that business as soon the topical debate had finished, but Conservative Members objected to it. That is why we will have to suspend the House, wasting time on procedural matters, which relates to the point that the Leader of the House made earlier. I hope that we will not be doing too much of that in future, because we could have got on with this afternoon's business more promptly.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House. Obviously, it is not a matter for me to say anything about wasting time; I would not dream of making such a partisan remark. However, I think that I owe the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) an apology, because I suggested that my own response to his point of order might be considered to be conclusive. Clearly, it was not, but it is fair to say that the response by the Deputy Leader of the House was indeed conclusive.

Food Industry Competitiveness

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of food industry competitiveness.
	Let me begin by congratulating the food sector on its progress as a successful industry that provides us with a wide range of tasty and healthy foods. The industry contributes more than £80 billion to our economy and is our largest manufacturing sector; the food and farming industries employ 3.6 million people. The industry contains high-tech and innovative companies and is well placed to meet the challenges of the future: producing more food, for more people, while minimising its environmental impact on the planet, adapting to a low-carbon future and continuing to make more efficient use of resources.
	To meet these challenges, the Government's food strategy, "Food 2030", which we published on 5 January, sets out our vision of what the food system should look like in 2030. The industry welcomed this vision; I thank the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation and the British Retail Consortium for their words of support. A thriving food sector will be better placed to invest in the changes necessary to deliver that vision. The Government are committed to fostering competitive markets that work in the best interest of consumers, and the groceries supply chain is no different. By looking for ways to help make markets work better, we can enable businesses to compete freely and fairly, giving UK consumers more choice and better value.

David Drew: With that in mind, when will the Government bring forward legislation on the supermarket ombudsman or support the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)? The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I, among others, want that to be done in this Parliament rather than waiting for a future Parliament.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. If he will bear with me, I will come to that when I discuss in some detail the Government's announcement that we are in favour of an ombudsman following the conclusion of considerations by the Competition Commission, which has made a number of recommendations. The Office of Fair Trading also has a role to play. I know that he and many other Members in all parts of the House have been lobbying for this initiative for some considerable time, and it has been welcomed pretty much across the piece.

Lynne Jones: rose-

Jim Fitzpatrick: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I am limited to 10 minutes and I want to get my remarks across so that as many colleagues as possible can contribute and I can respond in due course.

Lynne Jones: In advance of my Adjournment debate on Tuesday on Cadbury, and because I have to leave for a constituency engagement, may I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what lessons the Government are learning from the hostile takeover of Cadbury, which has meant that a well-run, debt-free company is now saddled with billions of pounds-worth of debt while those who have no interest in the long-term health of that company or any other industry have made a huge killing?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As my hon. Friend knows, that is a matter primarily for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and my noble Friend Lord Mandelson and his ministerial colleagues are examining it closely. We want to ensure that the best interests of the UK economy, UK production and UK workers are to the fore in the consideration of the takeover. I am a West Ham United supporter and, having followed the football club's recent takeover, I know that anybody who is interested in any takeover of a commercial operation wants to ensure that it is as successful as possible. I know that the Cadbury-Kraft issue will evolve in the weeks and months ahead, and my hon. Friend and many other Members will take a keen interest and wish everybody success.
	As I said, there has been mounting concern over recent years among various industry and lobbying groups about the power of the major supermarkets and the impact that that has on the supply of groceries, including the ability of local producers to access markets. The Government and the Office of Fair Trading shared those concerns and asked the Competition Commission to investigate the groceries market and see whether supermarket power was detrimental to consumer interests. We welcomed the commission's final report, published last year, and thanked it for its work.
	The commission found that in many respects, competition between supermarkets was strong and working effectively. Competition in the groceries market provides consumers with diverse choice, good value and low prices, and that is reflected in the numbers of shoppers who choose to buy their groceries in supermarkets. However, the commission identified two adverse effects on competition-areas in which the market structure does not work in the best interests of consumers.
	The first finding was that in some areas local groceries markets were dominated by single retail chains, restricting the choice available to shoppers. We are still considering our response to that. The second finding was that certain supermarkets' practices passed unacceptable risks or costs on to suppliers-mainly food manufacturers and processors-creating high levels of uncertainty about their income and so limiting their ability to invest and innovate.
	The commission proposed a number of remedies and recommendations to address the adverse effects on competition identified. They included a new groceries supply code of practice-GSCOP-for all supermarkets with a turnover of more than £1 billion a year. The Office of Fair Trading will play an important role in overseeing its implementation. Additionally, the commission recommended that the Government establish an ombudsman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned, to monitor GSCOP and arbitrate disputes between suppliers and retailers.
	That is a complex issue, and we have considered the recommendation carefully. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs announced on 13 January that he agreed with the Competition Commission that there was a need for a body to enforce the code of practice independently, to prevent retailers from being able to pass excessive risks and unexpected costs on to their suppliers. To support that, it was decided that the ombudsman should also have the important power of hearing anonymous complaints.
	The revised code of practice is a great improvement on the current regime. However, the power that large grocery retailers remain able to wield over their suppliers can still create pressures on small producers, especially in these difficult economic times. Ultimately, that may have an impact on consumers.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister not accept that the best ombudsman is the customer? I have no idea about the Minister's experience of working in the supermarket industry, but does he not agree that for any supermarket to succeed, by definition it has to have good relationships with its suppliers?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is important that the retail sector has good relationships with its suppliers, and by and large that is the case across the piece. However, in the course of the investigations into the relationship between supermarkets and producers, processors and the farming industry, it became clear that there had been some abuses. For example, sometimes there were no written contracts between the retail sector and the producers and processors, which seems very strange in this day and age. Also, prices were being changed after the event, which meant that the price that a producer or processor expected was not reflected in the cheque that came through the post from the retailers. Those abuses were taken into account, which was why the strengthened code of practice was produced and why all parties concluded that an ombudsman of some description would be appropriate to oversee the application of the new code. We were not convinced that the system was working as effectively as it could have done.

Andrew Murrison: rose-

Nick Herbert: rose-

Jim Fitzpatrick: I give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who leads for the Opposition. If the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) will allow me a couple of minutes, I will give way to him if I can get through my remarks.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he agree that the Competition Commission was clear that the absence of action would have meant suppliers innovating and investing less, and that crucially, that would not be in the interests of the consumer and could lead to higher prices in future? The chairman of the commission said recently that the economic downturn was a reason for action, not inaction.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Processors and producers needed certainty that the payment agreements and contracts that they had entered into would be honoured, allowing them to project what their future investment in their business or farm should be. That was not happening across the piece, and the uncertainty could have led to a number of businesses and farms going under. As he said, that could ultimately have acted to the detriment of the consumer.

Andrew George: rose-

Philip Hollobone: rose-

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am wasting time explaining this, but if I can give way-

Philip Hollobone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making a very interesting speech that we are all following closely, but I am not convinced that he is aware of the extra time that he gets for allowing interventions. I wonder whether you might be able to enlighten him.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the hon. Gentleman that the Minister does not get time for each intervention in these debates. He gets one minute of additional time, but it is still up to him to determine whether he will take an intervention.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for your explanation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had the additional time that I was allowed for the first two interventions. I have since taken two or three others, and as I said, if I have time I will certainly give way to him. However, I am not sure whether I will get through my remarks. I will have to run through them at pace.
	GSCOP will come into force on 4 February, and we will quickly follow that up with a consultation on how best to enforce it, including on the structure of the ombudsman and what powers it could have. We do not anticipate that a significant impact on consumer prices or staffing levels in retail will result from the creation of an enforcement body. We will consult not on whether a body is needed-we have decided that-but on exactly how that body will operate. We will consult on its nature and role, to ensure that all interested parties can make their views heard and that informed decisions are made.
	The new, tougher code and proper enforcement will mean that the grocery supply market works in the long-term best interests of consumers. The new ombudsman will help strike the right balance between farmers and food producers getting a fair deal and the interests of supermarkets. That will enable consumers to get the high-quality British food that they want at an affordable price. Helping our farmers produce as much as they can, while using fewer resources, is at the heart of the Government's food strategy, "Food 2030."
	I have previously commented in the House on the relationship between retailers and farmers. GSCOP will be for companies that supply produce direct to retailers. Most fresh produce is supplied to retailers through intermediaries such as packers, processors and fresh food wholesalers rather than by farmers. Although most farmers will therefore be outside the direct scope of GSCOP, the limited value of direct purchases by grocery retailers from farmers understates the closeness of the trading relationship between primary producers and grocery retailers. As farmers may be members of, or shareholders in, intermediary businesses that market their produce to grocery retailers, in that respect GSCOP will provide them with some certainty.
	As I have said, the industry contributes more than £80 billion to our economy and is our largest manufacturing sector. Through our "Food 2030" strategy, we will work to help ensure that it can thrive as an innovative, competitive and resilient sector, and as a sustainable source of growth and jobs. The Government are supporting the food industry not only through funding for innovation and skills but through our public procurement policies, through our "Love Food, Hate Waste" campaign to reduce waste, and by supporting the development of small and medium-sized enterprises and promoting regional foods.

Andrew George: In the circumstances, why are the Government proceeding with a further period of consultation? Office of Fair Trading referrals to the Competition Commission on this matter go back to April 1989 and the supermarkets will want to string the process out for as long as they possibly can. There have been inquiries and consultations enough. Why not simply implement the policy now?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the impatience of many of us regarding progress on this matter. However, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, there are still differences of opinion about the operation of an ombudsman. The Conservatives made a proposal on that recently, the Government are clearly outlining a different structure and responsibilities, and I am sure we will shortly hear the views of the Lib Dems from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The consultation will offer certainty that after the election campaign there will be an ombudsman and that all three parties will have had the opportunity to say in detail what shape and powers the ombudsman should have. They will also have the opportunity to say whether the ombudsman should be inside the OFT or an independent entity. That is what the consultation will be about.
	In conclusion, the new code and its enforcement, which are the result of two intensive investigations by the Competition Commission, will ensure that markets work effectively in the interests of consumers.

James Paice: May I remind the House of my interests, which are declared in the register?
	I welcome the fact that at last we are having a debate on food and farming in Government time. I cannot remember the last time that happened, but I congratulate the Government on it, even if they have hung the debate on a very small hook-the one action they have taken that they believe to be in the interests of agriculture.
	I shall address the issue of the ombudsman later, but the Minister began by referring to "Food 2030", which the Opposition welcome. After nearly 13 years in office, the Government have recognised that they got it wrong in their previous 12. The two previous Secretaries of State-the present and previous Foreign Secretary, indeed-repeatedly said that domestic food production was unnecessary and that our food security could be achieved by importing from several different countries. In that time, pork production went down by one third, and bacon and ham by a quarter. Production of poultry, vegetables, milk, eggs and most of our commodities also declined before the Government saw the error of their ways.

Shailesh Vara: Does my hon. Friend agree that one advantage of having domestic suppliers is that it guarantees the quality of the produce and helps substantially to encourage local economies?

James Paice: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Local sourcing guarantees provenance. Of course, it does not always guarantee high quality, but it certainly enables the consumer to know where a product comes from and to check the quality, which we strongly support.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend knows of my interest, albeit amateur, in the pork industry. Does he agree that for consumers to exert choice they need to know from where a product is sourced? Does he share my concern that certain supermarkets are in the habit of claiming that pork is sourced in the UK, but when one looks on their shelves, one finds that their bacon is produced anywhere but the UK? Does he agree that the ombudsman needs to look into that as a matter of urgency?

James Paice: I have never known my hon. Friend to do anything amateurishly, and I will come to the issue of food labelling in a few moments.
	The real issue with "Food 2030" is not what is in it, but what is not in it. There are no substantive proposals to restore the prosperity of our food supply industry, and therefore assure us of food security. The first thing must be to ensure that consumers are properly informed. We must have proper, honest country-of-origin labelling, initially in the meat sector. Even the Government have come round to that, but they have blocked four different private Members' Bills that would have provided such labelling. While the Minister and the Secretary of State have been declaring their support for country-of-origin labelling, we have it on record that Food Standards Agency officials have been voting against it in meetings in Brussels. There is not a lot of substance there.
	"Food 2030" says that agriculture must be supported by first-class research and development, yet the Government have been cutting funding on agricultural research for most of the past 12 years. The fundamental objective of the document is that the demand for food should be met by profitable, competitive, highly skilled and resilient farming-fish and food-businesses. It refers to the market and sharing risks, yet the Government have taken two years to respond to the Competition Commission report.
	We wholly support the new code of practice-GSCOP, as it is being called-and as we announced before the Government did, we support the idea of an ombudsman. Some think it odd that the Conservative party supports an ombudsman.

Philip Davies: Hear, hear!

James Paice: I know that at least one of my Back-Bench colleagues takes that view. My hon. Friend is an aficionado of Adam Smith and he will recall that Adam Smith actually says that a true free market is one in which there are an equal number of buyers and suppliers, which, of course, is patently not the case in the grocery market. The ombudsman is about addressing a market failure, not about interfering in a free market. However, we welcome the Government's albeit belated decision to respond.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman says "albeit belated", but he is quoted as saying at his party's conference in October:
	"There needs to be a code of practice properly enforced, but whether that requires a freestanding ombudsman which would be a new bureaucracy is not clear."
	It would therefore be fair to say that the change in the Conservative position is also belated.

James Paice: That is absolutely astonishing nonsense. We have done exactly what I said at that time. We have said that we will appoint an independent ombudsman, not in a separate office with all the paraphernalia-a reception and a new set of office rates and so on-but within the OFT. We want an independent, discrete unit within the OFT in order to keep the costs of providing an ombudsman down, but he would none the less be independent.
	I would be interested know whether the hon. Gentleman supports the principal spokesman for the Liberal Democrats on such matters. The latter says that we should have not an ombudsman but a price regulator who would fix prices, which would be totally contrary to European Union and World Trade Organisation law. The hon. Gentleman is completely deceiving farmers in this country if he believes that a Liberal Government-God forbid that one should ever exist-could actually fix the prices that supermarkets paid farmers for their milk or anything else. I look forward to his response to that.
	The "Food 2030" document refers to the need for better and more friendly regulation. That from a Government who introduced national muck-spreading day and put in statute the date when farmers may go and spread their muck!
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a target to reduce its administrative burden by 25 per cent. by May, but it will not hit it. The expectation is that at best it will reach 20 per cent., but even so, that is 20 per cent. of the wrong target, because targeting administration costs completely ignores the capital costs on businesses of meeting DEFRA regulations. The nitrate-vulnerable zone storage regulations cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to each and every livestock farmer in the country. The cost of regulation is still huge. Even if the Department declares in a few months' time that it has decreased the administrative burden by 20 per cent., I do not expect many farmers to have noticed the difference.

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning NVZs and the increased capital costs faced by farmers, particularly dairy farmers. However, the milk industry is clearly part of a chain where the market is not working properly. Farmers cannot sell milk for a greater price than it takes to produce it. What is the answer to the problem of reviving the dairy industry in this country?

James Paice: I obviously do not have time to retail a long list. We have two debates on the dairy industry in the House and Committee next week, when my hon. Friend might want to go into a bit more detail. Many dairy farmers are making a profit: part of the problem is the 6p or 7p a litre difference between the highest and lowest prices paid. The other issue is the cost of production. In a market in which the Government no longer-rightly-set prices, they are bound to do what they can to reduce the input costs, and that is part of what I am addressing, especially on regulation.
	On the issue of regulation, can the Minister bring us up to date on the situation with battery cages? We are hearing many stories of backing down on the 2012 ban, and we know that most European countries have hardly begun to introduce the enriched cages. What will the Government do to protect our industry and those farmers who have made significant new investment, but face egg imports from countries that have not done so?
	The Minister also referred to public sector food procurement. He mentioned improvement, but there has been precious little of that. This country should be predominant in supply of orchard fruit, given the industry in Kent and parts of the Welsh marches, but domestic supply fell from 46 per cent. in 2006-07 to 30 per cent. in 2007-08. The Government are consulting on a pilot healthier food mark, but does the Minister agree that that should involve the Red Tractor, or is it true that they propose to drop it from their proposals?
	Animal health is critical if we are to compete with other countries, especially in the grazing sector. The Government have announced their responsibility and cost-sharing proposals and appointed Rosemary Radcliffe to look into the issue and produce a report in November. However, we will have a draft Bill this month or next. What can be in that Bill if we will not have the substantive proposals from Ms Radcliffe until November? We cannot talk about increasing production and ignore the fact that some 40,000 head of cattle were culled last year because of bovine tuberculosis, up from 3,000 head a year when the Government took office.

Eric Martlew: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Conservative policy is to cull badgers in England?

James Paice: Conservative policy is to attack this disease with a comprehensive strategy using all available measures and, yes, that does include recognition that will require selective culling in certain hotspots, but not across the whole of England, as the hon. Gentleman implies. We will continue to study the science as it develops over the next few weeks and months. A vaccine that is of any use-an oral vaccine, in other words-will not be available until 2014 and, at the current rate of expansion anything between 80,000 and 100,000 head of cattle could be slaughtered each year by then. I suggest that we cannot wait until 2014 for any improvement.
	With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister about another animal health issue not directly related to food-at least not in this country. It relates to the outbreak this week in Wiltshire of equine infectious anaemia in two horses imported from Romania. My understanding is that EU law has, since 2007, required testing prior to export. I hope that the Minister can tell us what has gone wrong, whether those animals were tested and how they got to Wiltshire before being detected.
	The Minister also referred to energy and waste reduction. He may not be aware that over the past few weeks I have tabled questions to every Department about food waste and only the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to give me any figures. Almost every other Department has said that it does not collect those statistics. I suggest that the Government start leading by example and collecting those statistics. The Government talk about spending £10 million on anaerobic digesters as demonstration plants, but that ignores the fact that many are already in place and running, based on renewable obligations certificates. We now find that the Department of Energy and Climate Change proposes to renege on those certificates and there will be no grandfather rights for existing plants. However, DEFRA proposes more regulations on the size of store that will need a licence-another difficulty for anybody who wants to set up an anaerobic digestion plant, even though this country is already way behind in that area and needs to improve.
	When it comes to the Government's document, rarely can there have been so much hype over so little substance. The Government seek credit for admitting that they have got this issue completely wrong for the past 12 years, because domestic food production does matter. That is in the face of the fact that the farming and food industries have been saying for years that the Government's policy was wrong. The Conservative party has consistently called for food security, but the Government rubbished it. The Conservative party called for honest labelling and country-of-origin information, and the Government blocked that. The Conservative party is committed to public procurement, but we have a pale imitation of that from this Government. We are committed to an ombudsman, and all we have from the Government is a consultation. For years, the real interests of the countryside, farming and the food industry have been pursued by the Conservatives, not by the Government. For years we have been setting the agenda that the Government are belatedly beginning to follow-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Andrew George: Like the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I am pleased that the Government have provided time to debate this important issue. I welcome the Government's belated statement on 13 January. I should also declare an interest as someone who has chaired an organisation called Grocery Market Action Group for the past four years. It has cross-party support and representatives from the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Friends of the Earth, ActionAid, Traidcraft, the British Brands Group, the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association and several other organisations with an interest in a competitive and effective food industry in the UK and in fair trade with suppliers in developing countries.
	It is important to note that those organisations and others, who have watched how this sector has developed over the past 11 years of various inquiries by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, and the original voluntary supermarket code of practice, are not criticising the supermarkets and their behaviour as being in some way criminal. Indeed, their activities have been entirely rational. It would be surprising if anyone in the position of the Sainsburys, Tescos and Asdas of this world did not take the fullest possible advantage of their impact on market-the OFT has described them as able to dictate market conditions. They are in a very powerful position and their behaviour is entirely rational. The issue that the competition authorities have considered over the years is whether those firms' use of power in the marketplace has turned from effective and clever into an abuse. The important work of the Competition Commission in an excellent report published in April 2008-and the length of time since then is one reason why people are getting frustrated-demonstrated that we are talking about a level of abuse. The Minister himself in his opening remarks referred to the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs, and that has been clearly demonstrated by the thorough inquiry by the Competition Commission. The inquiry stated that it has
	"an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain and ultimately on consumers."
	The last important point was left out of the Minister's comments. It is important that we have a market working in the interests of consumers.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is working on the premise that there are big, horrible, nasty supermarkets screwing poor, small suppliers into the ground. If that is the case, as he seems to think, and if his ombudsman is to deal with it, the only upshot will be that prices will have to go up for the consumer, because supermarkets pass on those savings to the consumer. How much extra is he happy for his constituents to pay in their shopping bills to meet his desire for an ombudsman?

Andrew George: That is a complete misapprehension and fails to understand how the market works. The Competition Commission has clearly shown that there are abuses within the supply chain and that suppliers are being pushed to the wall. That is during the deepest recession when the largest supermarkets are now posting record profits. It is not entirely unknown for the supermarkets to achieve record profits. Yes, there is a benefit for someone-and we all know where it is going. Whether that is, as the Minister said, the impact of retrospective changes in the unwritten contracts, the lack of notice in delisting, the holding of suppliers liable for losses due to shrinkage, or other overriders within the system itself, the fact is that the whole thing needs a serious review.
	In January last year, we commissioned Roger Clarke of the Cardiff business school to undertake an independent investigation into the cost impacts on the supermarkets resulting from the application of regulation. He has since published a report for us. He made himself clear:
	"While the creation of an Ombudsman will involve some cost (estimated at about £5-6 million per year) this is likely to be small relative to consumer benefits as a whole. As noted by the CC, the actual size of the food retail industry in the UK is £110. 4 billion and a 0.1 per cent. price fall for the largest 4 retailers is equivalent to a reduction in consumer expenditure of £80 million a year".
	He also stated that
	"the costs are likely to be minor compared to the benefits for consumers that arise."

Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there might be some benefits for the British food industry in, for example, labelling, which supermarkets currently use in an adverse way? I mentioned the pork industry in my earlier intervention and the fact that the implication to consumers is that some products are British-sourced when in fact they are not. That clearly needs to be sorted out. Had supermarkets done that already, and not behaved as I am afraid that they have, perhaps some of us would be less enthusiastic now for an ombudsman to sort it out.

Andrew George: I am grateful for that extremely helpful intervention. One of the knock-on effects of the proposals would be greater transparency through the groceries supply chain, which would be to the enormous benefit of suppliers, and I think the supermarkets are now waking up and recognising that it would be in their interests as well. While there remains this uncertainty and while supermarkets continue to be accused of treating their suppliers in an adverse manner, the existence of an ombudsman would be of clear benefit to the supermarkets, because it would give them a clean bill of health-if there were no findings against them in a particular year. There would be a big benefit to them.
	I know that the supermarkets have expressed concerns about a slippery slope and explained that it would result in further regulation. However, I do not think that that would be the case. I am concerned that the Government are opting for further consultation after 10 years. Clearly the supermarkets want to string this out for as long as possible. To reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), this is not a price-sensitive initiative. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will continue to float ideas, I welcome the measure and hope that we can introduce it as soon as possible.

Alistair Burt: I am delighted to have the chance to speak in this debate. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). It is good to have such a debate in Government time and to welcome this belated food strategy. Many of the component parts, and certainly several of the good component parts, follow long-standing policy initiatives and issues set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, who has done such a tremendous job in his position over the years and speaks with knowledge and great integrity.
	I would like to set out the background to this debate. As we know, British agriculture has had some difficulties over the years and trends in self-sufficiency have been poor. We reckon that we have lost self-sufficiency in indigenous food of about 9 per cent.-from 82 per cent. in 1998 to 73 per cent. in 2007. Most of us who represent rural and agricultural areas know of the problems with livestock, the declining numbers of beef and dairy cows, and the pig industry. Many Members will remember the lobby by the pig industry a couple of years ago, which tried to alert the Government to the issues and problems, including the loss of 40 per cent. of the national herd between 1997 and 2008.
	The background to the problems with food, farming and agriculture are well known to us and have over the years caused great distress to those who represent these areas. However, I would like to demonstrate the resilience of all parts of the food chain by looking at one particular constituency-my own-and seeing how, in many aspects of the Government's core objectives in the food strategy, my own constituency illustrates what can be done. It is simply a symbol for other areas that can do the same.
	I start, however, with a matter that is particular to my constituency. I am lucky to have Peter Kendall, the National Farmers Union president, as a constituent of mine. He farms a well-known family farm in Eyeworth-a popular family and a popular man-and has been a far-sighted leader of the NFU. He has done some terrific things to accentuate the positive aspects of farming and to get the farming industry and farmers to proclaim what they can do, instead of always being seen sitting on the sidelines saying what cannot be done.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am pleased to put on the record my personal commendation of Mr. Kendall and to endorse the sentiments outlined by the hon. Gentleman. However, given that there is an NFU election at the moment, I would not want to prejudice Mr. Kendall's chances or give any indication that there is a Government candidate in the election. I offer the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to say that this is a politically neutral election and that it is for the NFU members to make up their own minds.

Alistair Burt: The Minister has absolutely said what needs to be said. As Peter Kendall's Member of Parliament, I am entitled to give a more rounded endorsement that will not be coloured by any sense that it comes either from the Government or the official Opposition. It is simply a recognition of a man who has been an outstanding farmer in his own area and has taken those skills to the national level.
	I remember the first speech that Peter gave to the NFU dinner in his home area after he became NFU president and how proud people were of him. He picked out a series of points that he said he would major on over the following few years. They included an understanding of the global issues facing agriculture, the number of people who needed to be fed over the next 30 to 50 years and the disappearance of agricultural land across the world. Not only was that an issue in itself, but it required us to think again about science and the relationship between science and farming. There were some easy things that people could say, but some hard issues to be faced by people who needed food, not warm words. He was very conscious of the UK's own food production and the issue to which I referred earlier-our self-sufficiency.
	Above all, Mr. Kendall emphasised to the local NFU, to which I shall return in a moment, the importance of projecting a positive image of farming. I believe that he has done all those things. He was also keen to talk not only about UK farming, but about the EU, and to recognise the importance of the UK's relationship with the EU and how important it was to think of the EU collectively, as well as in relation to our national interest.
	That issue is particular to my constituency, given Peter's position, but I want to illustrate how some of the companies and other businesses in the area work to fulfil the objectives of "Food 2030". We have Jordans in my constituency, which puts Biggleswade on the map-a town that, as all hon. Members present will know, is a fulcrum in Bedfordshire. Jordans was innovative in realising many years ago that food tastes-and particularly breakfast food tastes-were changing. People wanted a different, healthier breakfast cereal and they wanted it delivered in a different form, through energy bars and cereal bars. The family went out and developed them, and they built an extraordinary business.
	Jordans has a great relationship with farmers, as all food producers must. The company pays a premium to farmers to plant 10 per cent. of their land with nature-friendly habitats to conservation-grade standard. Jordans has been a pioneer, it works in healthy food, it is innovative, and it relates to its consumers. The current campaign on its website is about encouraging its customers to think about putting spare food into a compost bin at the end of day, instead of throwing it away. Jordans recognises the importance of the food chain right the way through.
	As we are talking about vegetables and food waste, let me say that I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the need to use energy, through the work of Biogen and anaerobic digestion. Biogen is one of the companies he talked about that is taking a lead on the issue, turning food waste into power. The company is based in Milton Ernest in my constituency. Through pig slurry and food waste, it produces 1 MW of electricity a year-enough to provide continuous power and electricity to 800 or 900 houses. That is a perfect example of small-scale microgeneration. When we hear the big arguments about onshore wind, for example, we say to people, "There may be an alternatives. Renewables are not all about wind farms. There are other ways to go about it." Plants that use anaerobic digestion-the conversion of waste into methane and, ultimately, electricity-is a perfect example. I therefore share the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed about regulation.

James Paice: I just want to clarify that the company to which I was referring in my speech was indeed Biogen, because it has contacted me-as I am sure it has my hon. Friend-to express its great concern that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is proposing to renege on its agreement on renewables obligation certificates. That means that the financial deal that the company entered into, and on the basis of which it made its original investments, no longer necessarily holds. Those investments would never have been made on that basis, and certainly none will be made in future.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in what might be the sting in the tail of this crafted speech, for illustrating what my constituents are doing. In that way we come full circle, to some of the problems that they are facing and how, despite the Government's intentions, as set out in their paper, their actions do not always ensure the ends that they seek. They say one thing, but are doing things that make life more difficult for those whom they want to encourage. My hon. Friend has picked out a perfect example of that. I commend the Ibbett family and Andrew Needham at Biogen for all they are doing to pioneer renewable energy in that way.
	Before we get on to vegetable waste, however, we start with the vegetables themselves. Bedfordshire, an area noted for the growing of vegetables, also has people who recognise that, with different shopping and working habits, we need to retail in a different way. My family and I get our vegetables every week in a veg box from Garden Friends. There is no unnecessary packing, and we get vegetables that are locally produced, where possible, and seasonal. The whole family get a chance to eat slightly different things and cook different things according to season, using locally sourced products. Garden Friends has now expanded, with a farm shop based in Roxton in my constituency. I commend Val and Mark for the work they are doing, but they are not the only ones to have pioneered that form of retailing, recognising the changing culture. They too are working hard to fulfil the Government's objective of providing healthy food in a sustainable manner.
	Right at the other end of the scale from Jordans, a national company with a strong export record, and Garden Friends, which operates on a small scale, is Unilever, the multinational. Unilever's main food science research establishment is based at Colworth park in north Bedfordshire. It is a remarkable establishment, containing the most northerly tea plantation in the world-Lipton is the brand-and looking after such wonderful things as ice cream and so on. In the recent restructuring of Unilever, I was delighted that Colworth park remained in what is now a handful of world renowned research establishments. The work done at Colworth park fulfils the Government's aim in key point six of their strategy, which talks about
	"Increasing the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology".
	Unilever is looking at how to take the bad fats out of food-the trans fats and saturated fats-and ensure that only the good fats remain, as well as how to present food in a healthier manner and how to take existing brands and make them better. Unilever also looks at new products to ensure that they are safe.
	Colworth park is developing: it is becoming a science park. I am delighted to say that the Institute of Food Research will have a presence there from next year. That fits in with Bedfordshire's overall strategy to be part of what we call the Oxford-Cambridge arc and-to use another geometric symbol-part of the golden triangle, of Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college London, where science and technology is based. Unilever's presence is therefore key; but again, in just one constituency, we have research and development, and the multinational, the local, the farmers and the growers. Despite the difficulties of food and all the problems over the years, we can see in just one constituency the people, the skills and the talent needed to combat them.
	There is one final link in the chain: us eating the food. I pay tribute to the growing number of farm collectives that are being set up to market their produce. There is one in London called the Farm Collective, a deli in Smithfield where this morning I had a really good bacon roll and a nice cup of coffee. Everything is British-sourced-the provenance is there to see, and we can trace it through.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) raised an eyebrow when I mentioned coffee. That point is tackled in a little note produced by the Farm Collective, which says:
	"At the Farm Collective we represent a new movement in food. Our ingredients are sourced by us from British farms (ok, coffee is tricky but the award winning Square Mile Coffee Roasters take care of this for us)."
	I think that the Farm Collective can be allowed a little leeway on coffee. I know all that from having my bacon roll and coffee there this morning with my son Mat, who is working there for a few months, and I thought that I would put it on the record. I hope that I do not have to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that young man begins to make his way in the world. All those examples show what can be and is being done in our food industry at all levels to deliver not only the Government's objectives, but what the consumer is looking for.
	Finally, let me return to my local NFU branch, which I met last week, because that is where the rubber meets the road. Despite everything that I have said about the positive attitude of farmers, what they want from the Government is to ensure that warm words are followed by action. To say that they are suspicious of the current Government is a bit of an understatement, as I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge. Farmers have been through a tough time, and after all that time they are not sure whether everything put forward in the strategy will be delivered. For example, there are conflicting messages. Farmers are being asked to produce more food, but the Government are still ambivalent about some of the pesticides and chemicals that can be used, and that worries them. We cannot take the science out of farming. Farmers need a clear lead on that issue. Why has it taken so long to get the supermarket ombudsman up and running? The issues between farmers and supermarkets predate the current Government-things have been exceptionally difficult-and they are worried that everything has taken so long.

Andrew George: One point that I did not have time to expand upon was about that very relationship. The proposal for a supermarket ombudsman deals only with the ultimate supplier and the supermarket. What is required under that proposal-I hope that the Minister will address this in his summing up-is something to ensure that issues can be investigated right through the supply chain, up to the farmer and the grower. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Alistair Burt: Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Part of the problem is that this process has had such a long gestation period, and we still do not know exactly how it will work. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was kind enough not to suggest that we had prompted the Government into action with our own announcement just a few days before they made theirs in Oxford. Perhaps they had not thought the matter through at that point. The details need to be worked through, and I am confident about the contribution that my hon. Friend will make to enabling those details to become a practical reality.
	Why has there been such a long delay on labelling? The problems with meat labelling raise serious issues for those who rear and produce food in this country. They have to abide by health regulations, and they face competition, but that is nothing new. It was not enough to hear a squeak from the Government just before Christmas to the effect that this matter was moving on to the agenda. It is no wonder that my friends in the local NFU are suspicious. They really want to see something delivered on this; they have been waiting too long.
	Finally, when will the Government truly understand the problems associated with gold-plating directives? We hear all the talk on this. Indeed, I was questioned heavily by members of the NFU on my own party's position on this, because they hear the same talk. They want a Government who understand the damage that gold-plating and over-gilding the regulations can do. Open Europe has estimated that the cost of regulation has tripled for the farming industry since DEFRA was formed in 2001. That tells its own story.
	I am grateful for the time that I have been allowed this afternoon. I hope that I have managed to illustrate what one typical rural constituency can do, right the way through the chain from the largest company to the smallest, from those who work on an international scale to the individual suppliers, from research to growing, and from retailing to consuming and to dealing with the waste remnants in an innovative fashion. People are looking for a Government who will understand what they are about and work to help them and deal with the conundrums that I have raised, to which they want real answers. I am confident that, in a short time, they will have a Government who will do just that job.

Philip Davies: I will try to be brief. I know that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) wants to speak, and I want to give him enough time to set out his stall as well.
	I want to focus on the proposals for a supermarket ombudsman. I am afraid that the debate so far on this issue has been familiarly depressing. Debates in this place seem to follow the same old routine. First, an outside body makes a recommendation about something. In this case, it was the Competition Commission, but it can be Select Committees or other bodies set up by the Government. Whatever happens, we seem to take the view in this place that, whenever such a body produces a report, we all have to stand up and say, "Wasn't that a marvellous report? We can't think of anything bad to say about any of the recommendations, and everyone's done a wonderful job." We build up a cosy consensus in this place based on the fact that no criticism can ever be made of any report done by anybody about anything.
	I do not share that view. Are we really saying that we are happy to give the Competition Commission a blank cheque, that we are going to agree with everything that it comes up with, and that it must be marvellous simply because the Competition Commission says so? That appears to be the nature of the debate that we have had on this matter so far. Everyone seems to have said, "This must be a good thing because the Competition Commission says so." Some of us have thoughts and experiences of our own, however. I am not sure how much experience of the supermarket industry other hon. Members have had. I am one of the few who has spent a number of years working in it, and I would like to use the short time available to expose a few of the myths that have grown up around this subject in the House.
	I do not know whether it is a particularly British disease, but we seem to have a need to knock every successful industry in this country. We try to knock down any industry that reaches a certain size and level. We should be incredibly proud of our supermarket industry. It employs hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, it employs people in each hon. Member's constituency, although I am not entirely sure whether some have any great desire to see those people in work. Supermarkets also provide a very good service to tens of millions of customers each week.

Jim Fitzpatrick: There have been two intensive investigations involving examinations and consultations by the Competition Commission, and the Front-Bench teams of all three parties concluded that there was evidence to suggest that something was wrong and that we needed a code of practice. We introduced a code of practice, but it did not work very well, so we tried to strengthen it. We have now all concluded that there needs to be a means of enforcing it. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he might perhaps not be right on this, and that there is another side to the argument?

Philip Davies: I do not doubt that there is another side to the argument; that is the side that I am trying to give. We have only heard one side so far. The Minister might believe that, because there is a cosy consensus between all the main parties, everyone is right. In my experience, however, such cosy consensus usually means that everyone is wrong. I do not know whether you will allow me the luxury of giving the House a catalogue of examples, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would include joining the exchange rate mechanism and setting up the Child Support Agency. I could go on, but I will not. Just because all those on the three Front Benches agree on something, it does not necessarily follow that it is right. I am grateful to the Minister for letting me put the other side of the argument.
	The supermarket industry is incredibly successful. Why is this? Everyone is so concerned about it being too powerful, but how has it got to the state that it is in? It has done so because it does something that we should encourage all businesses to do: it offers the customers who voluntarily go through the supermarkets' doors-I am not aware of any that use a lasso to drag people in to shop against their will-a wide range of products that they want to buy at a price-

Andrew Pelling: It has a big market share.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak, if he calms down. If he does not, I might have to go on for too long, so that he does not get a chance. I urge him to calm himself down for a second.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have the debate conducted in an orderly manner?

Philip Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your support.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I will.

Andrew Pelling: Let us do this properly. Would it not be possible to argue that supermarkets go for a large market share and act in an oligopolistic manner, which might go against the interests of suppliers and, indeed, consumers?

Philip Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I will come to the details in a moment. I want to address those issues as well. At the moment, I am merely setting the scene.
	Supermarkets sell the products that people want to buy at prices that they want to pay. That is why they have become so successful. No supermarket starts out as a huge multinational company. All businesses start out as small businesses, as did all the supermarkets. They became big businesses by looking after their customers and their employees and, to a large extent, by looking after their suppliers.
	One element that seems to have been conveniently forgotten in this debate is that supermarkets sell products, and that those products come from suppliers. If the supermarkets did not look after their suppliers and build up a good relationship with them, they would end up with nothing but fresh air on their shelves. They would have no business without suppliers. In the real world of retail, things can go wrong. A supplier could have a problem, perhaps as a result of a health scare, or of foreign objects being found in their products. Supermarkets desperately need to have a good relationship with their suppliers at such times, so that they can go to another supplier and say, "We've got a problem at that factory. Can you increase overnight the amount you can supply to us, because we're in a bit of a pickle?" If supermarkets did not give a stuff about their suppliers, and if all they were interested in was screwing every single one of them into the ground as much as possible, they would never be able to rely on that kind of good will. Anyone here who thinks that supermarkets can not only survive but thrive without building up good, close relationships with their suppliers is completely misguided, and miles off the case. That is a ludicrous thought.

Eric Martlew: I worked in the food industry for more than 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, why do we get copycat products-own-brand products-with very similar packaging to the branded goods appearing on the supermarket shelves beside the branded goods? If the supermarkets want to keep a good relationship with their suppliers, why do they try to copy the packaging of the branded goods?

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman may think that all of his constituents are stupid and cannot tell the difference between an own-brand product and a branded product. He seems to follow the theme of what this Labour Government think-that everybody is so stupid that the Government have to decide everything for them-but I actually have more faith in consumers. I think that my constituents, who I am not entirely sure are greatly different from the hon. Gentleman's, are perfectly able to decide whether they want to buy an own-brand product or a branded product, as they can tell the difference between one that says Tesco on it and one that says Kellogg.

Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman's language about my constituents being stupid is offensive, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am used to him being offensive. If the supermarkets do not want to deceive, why do they do it?

Philip Davies: I was not saying that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are stupid; I was saying that he seems to think his constituents are stupid. I do not think they are, which is why I do not think that we need to intervene, as they are more than capable of distinguishing a packet that says Tesco on it from a packet that says Kellogg on it. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that they can.

Andrew Pelling: rose-

Philip Davies: I am going to press on, as I want to allow the hon. Gentleman time to elaborate his views later.
	I do not accept the premise that supermarket businesses are built on screwing suppliers into the ground and on not having a good relationship with their suppliers. To my mind, that would be nonsense.
	I will say in passing that the idea that we need an ombudsman to improve innovation in the food industry is laughable. We have a hugely innovative industry, so the idea that the ombudsman is essential to promote innovation in the industry is absolutely and utterly ludicrous. The ombudsman is being set up, it seems, on the premise that we have big, horrible and nasty supermarkets screwing their suppliers into the ground on price. The only possible upshot of a successful ombudsman, for those people who want to set it up, is that supermarkets will pay more to their suppliers for their goods. The only consequence of that is that the price to the consumer will go up.
	I would not mind this so much if we had an honest debate in this House. If people stood up and said, "I believe in a supermarket ombudsman; the likelihood is that it will put prices up by x per cent. but, overall, that will be beneficial to the country as a whole", that would be fine. I might disagree, but at least it would be an honest debate. Instead, we are offered something from cloud cuckoo land-I think Sir Alfred Sherman described that as politicians always offering "painless panaceas", and here we have our latest painless panacea. The painless panacea is this: we can have a supermarket ombudsman, which has the support of all three Front-Bench teams, who looks after suppliers, makes supermarkets pay more money to them, but, crucially, the upshot will be a lower price for the consumer. I do not think that many people would have to study that proposal for very long before they knew that that is patently and utterly ridiculous. If people want supermarkets to pay more to the suppliers, that is a perfectly legitimate point to argue, but at least have the honesty to accept that the only possible outcome is to put up prices to the consumer.

Christopher Chope: As always, my hon. Friend is putting forward a brilliant analysis. Does he accept that in dealing with the protection of consumers, the Government -and the Opposition, for that matter-would be much better exercised if they attacked the common agricultural policy, which adds the best part of £1,000 a year to the food bill of a family of four?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have this ludicrous situation in which the parties are trying to bring in measures supposedly to help suppliers and consumers, while on the other hand the Government are party to the common agricultural policy, which puts great costs on consumers, while producers and food suppliers are facing more and more regulations that are probably a bigger problem than anything that supermarkets might do to them.

Andrew Pelling: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is there not a danger with this new scheme of failing to recognise that the suppliers can be quite strong and are sometimes large international corporations themselves? It may well be that the new system benefits only the likes of Unilever or, to mention the company that I am associated with, Nestlé.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was going to come on to that point, but I shall touch on it now. The fact of the matter is that the biggest supermarket chains in the country, on which the efforts of the new ombudsman will be focused, have big suppliers by definition, as those suppliers are the ones who can produce the stuff in sufficient quantity to get it across the country. By definition, then, big supermarkets tend to have big suppliers. Many of those suppliers are huge multinational companies in their own right.
	In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), he has recognised the issue and wants an ombudsman to look at smaller suppliers rather than suppliers per se; I give credit to my hon. Friend in that regard. However, we could end up with a ridiculous situation in which an ombudsman intervenes on behalf of a huge multinational food company that is actually bigger than the supermarket. In many cases, we should congratulate supermarkets on being hard-nosed in making big multinational companies reduce their prices for the benefit of the consumer rather than building up even bigger profits for themselves. Some pharmaceutical companies, for example, are massive and have huge marketing budgets.
	Another myth is that supermarkets persuade suppliers to do special offers and make the supplier pay for them. The fact is that suppliers fall over themselves to provide special offers for supermarkets. They say to the supermarket, "Please can we do a 'buy one, get one free' offer on our product?", because it is part of their marketing budget. They use those huge budgets to urge supermarkets to make such offers, and they are quite happy to pay for them, because it helps to build their market share. In my time at Asda, I might add, we used to say to suppliers, "Rather than you coming to us with 'buy one, get one free' or 'three for the price of two' offers, why not just have a long-term reduced price?", so that rather than the people who buy the product in that particular week or month or families of five or six benefiting, every single customer benefits from an overall lower price. It is not supermarkets that force suppliers into these deals; it is often the suppliers themselves who are insistent on those special offers. It is another misapprehension.

James Paice: I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend-clearly, we are not going to agree on all fronts-but I entirely share his view that if a supplier wants to do a "buy one, get one free" offer, it is a matter between the supplier and the supermarket. My concern, however, is where the supermarket goes to the supplier and says, "We have decided to do one of these offers and you are going to fund it." Does my hon. Friend think that that sort of retrospective impact on a supplier, which the code of practice is designed to get rid of, is fair? Another issue is the principle of retrospective discounts, where at the end of the financial year-I know this from first-hand experience of businesses in my constituency-supermarkets decide that they have paid suppliers too much for potatoes, onions and carrots over the year, so they demand big cheques, some of which have run to seven figures.

Philip Davies: I am genuinely sorry that my hon. Friend has come to that conclusion. What he is proposing is an ombudsman to rule on contracts and deals between two private enterprises-on one side a supermarket, on the other a food producer and supplier. I am not at all surprised that the Labour Government would want to stick their noses into every contract entered into between private businesses, as that is their rationale in life-the state has to stick its nose into everything. I am not surprised either that the Liberal Democrats follow the same tack, as they think that there might be three extra votes for them in Cornwall, and anything that generates three extra votes anywhere will find favour with them. I am genuinely not surprised that those parties are jumping on this particular bandwagon, but I am genuinely disappointed that the Conservative party has reached the conclusion that the best way to proceed is for the state to interfere in private arrangements between one private company and another.
	Where will it end? I might look at many contracts entered into by one company or another and think to myself, "Why has that clause been allowed in a contract. If it was my business, I wouldn't have allowed it." It is a matter for them. Will we start interfering in every contract between one private company and another to ensure that we think it is fair to both sides?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes a decent point with regard to the relationship between larger suppliers and the supermarkets. I would like a code of practice and its enforcement to cut both ways. Wherever evidence of unfair dealing exists, that should be rooted out, whichever direction it goes in. From my experience in the food production sector, particularly farming, I am well in touch with what is going on, as he is from his experience with Asda. Will he acquaint himself with the Roger Clarke report, which states that the remedy proposed is
	"likely to lead to more choice, better quality products and lower prices in some cases. Even very small price reductions and other benefits are likely to result in consumer benefits far outweighing the modest cost of the Ombudsman"
	to the supermarkets? Surely he must accept that there are benefits to the proposal.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman may take the view that if he reads something in a report, he must agree with it. I do not take that view. I think that the quote he has just given is utter drivel. He might be taken in by any report, written by anybody. The fact that something is in a report does not make it any more sensible than if somebody down the street said it without any evidence whatever; it is still drivel. I thought that he was going to say that I had a good point about the Liberal Democrats saying something just for three extra votes in Cornwall, but he disappointed me on that.
	The proposal is ludicrous. It will have no benefit whatever for the consumer-quite the reverse. If we think about it for a second, the UK grocery market is worth about £130 billion a year. If the ombudsman managed to extract from supermarkets an extra 1 per cent. in payment for suppliers, an extra £1.3 billion a year in costs would be passed on to consumers. If people want consumers to have that extra bill, and if they think that it is a price worth paying to have the ombudsman, let them at least have the decency, courage and honesty to stand up and say so. What I cannot stomach is the idea that we can promote painless panaceas and that more regulation will benefit consumers, supermarkets and suppliers. Clearly, that is ridiculous; it will not happen. Although it comes as no surprise that the Government and Lib Dems have gone down that line of state intervention, I am genuinely saddened that the Conservative party believes that that is the way forward.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for giving me seven-I want to give the Minister time to respond-of the remaining 28 minutes available for this debate. As a confirmed Heathite, I naturally recoil when he rises to speak, but he has nevertheless highlighted some real difficulties with GSCOP. However well meaning government is, sometimes its good intentions are not only not delivered, but have malevolent unintended effects.
	As the hon. Gentleman has said, GSCOP could end up strengthening the hand of large international corporate suppliers against the supermarkets. A great deal of work remains to be done on the code of practice and the role of the ombudsman, but it is important that we are reassured that that will not be the result. There are some good reasons for Government intervention, however, one of the most fundamental being food security. The Government's consultation on "Food 2030" recognised that as an important role for government. We must therefore hope that they realise the importance of watching the financial and agricultural markets. At the beginning of the recent equity rally in the City, huge amounts of money were invested in agricultural products, which had a hugely distorting effect on the markets, compromising food supply in certain parts of the third world. There is an important means of intervention in that area.
	There is a recognition that what we eat is what we are. In that regard, government has an important role in monitoring what goes into our food system. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised the important issue of trans fats. In relation to that, obesity is an issue of concern. Many people suffer from that condition in my constituency and in Croydon, South, and they are unable to get effective operations from the NHS to deal with it.
	My constituency has only one farm, so it can hardly be said to have a farming interest. Nevertheless, it has significant food interests. Nestlé UK, which is based in Croydon, is by far the biggest employer in the constituency. I am sure that the prospects for Nestlé are greatly enhanced by the unfortunate situation of Cadbury, a debt-free company that believed strongly in philanthropy, which has been bought at a price that will not prevent asset stripping from greatly damaging it. Nestlé, however, is an extremely good citizen in Croydon and takes very seriously corporate responsibility. The company has been the subject of great criticism in the past, and, amazingly, was attacked by my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Croydon, Central. I believe, however, that it has very high standards and is a typical triple A company.
	Croydon has important food interests in other ways. It has a large black and minority ethnic community and their involvement in importing many products from abroad has an important food role and is an important part of our economy. On the London road just across the constituency border in Croydon, North, the diversity of products available means that one can shop the world.
	For Croydon, food is also an important green issue. The Heathfield ecology unit and other community activities strongly push the importance of community foods. Food is seen as an important part of securing status for New Addington as an eco-town. We also benefit from many good fish and chip restaurants, especially McDermott's and Top Fryers.
	If we are to have competitiveness in our food industry, we can no longer afford, under the aegis of the European Union, a wasteful and expensive common agricultural policy, or a fisheries policy that causes appalling environmental damage. We should move away from the current EU fishing policies to the effort-based ones of the Faroe Islands, where fisheries bid for an amount of fishing time. That would avoid a situation in which huge amounts of fish are thrown back into the oceans.
	From the point of view of the consumer, the "buy one, get one free" approach is extraordinarily discriminatory against those in small families and particularly the elderly. It is unreasonable that they see in shops that if they buy a smaller amount they will suffer a significant financial loss compared with others. We also need to consider the strength of large organisations-for example, Tesco-vis-à-vis local authorities. They are often dominant, and through use of section 106 agreements they can dominate their way into communities. In New Addington, there was a great deal of controversy over a development that would not have been in keeping with the area, although I am sure that, despite pulling out of New Addington several years ago, Tesco would be welcome with a more modest scheme.
	Tesco's moves into corner-shop territory sometimes compromise good business in the shape of small providers, typically south Asian families. In Woodside Green in Croydon, the branch of Londis run by Mr. Patel is threatened by the establishment of a Tesco Express only about 500 yards from the nearest one. Supermarkets should exercise balance and discretion.
	I recall a most enjoyable visit to New Covent Garden with the Minister and the Secretary of State to inspect regional British foods. We should celebrate the added value that can be provided by the specialisms of British food manufacturers, and we should also bear in mind the importance of regional foods in reducing the number of food miles. We should pay attention to what is put on our plates here in London. The Minister was, of course, an excellent Minister for London.
	Many regional food businesses provide employment for my constituents. We may have only one farm, Heathfield farm, but many of the wineries that have grown up in Surrey provide important employment as well.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) for allowing me time to respond to some of the issues that have been raised, and, indeed, to his own observations on "Food 2030". I, too, recall the recent celebration and promotion of the best of British regional food at New Covent Garden, and I know that Members in all parts of the House would endorse his comments on that. He also raised genuine concerns about the Cadbury-Kraft situation. I hope that my earlier remarks reassured him that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government are taking the closest interest in looking after the well-being of the business, its staff and, indeed, UK plc.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) began by asking when we last debated these issues in Government time. During my first week as Minister of State, we had two agricultural debates, one in Government time and the other on an Opposition motion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that such debates happen, and hopefully we shall have opportunities for further debates before the general election.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that "Food 2030" represented an acknowledgement by the Government that we had got it all wrong before. That is not, of course, the case. What "Food 2030" says is that the world has moved on. We have experienced the food price spike of 2008, climate change has been taken more seriously and population change has featured, among other factors. "Food 2030" is the first major food strategy document in, I believe, 60 years, a period that encompasses a good deal of Conservative as well as Labour Administration time.
	We have discussed the honesty of country of origin labelling before. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have supported the recommendations of the pigmeat taskforce, more accurate labelling by retailers of the products on their shelves and the European Commission's attempts to improve country of origin labelling. We have discussed developments in Europe as well, and, as we know, there has not been a European vote on the issue. Last year, the French suggested compulsory labelling of non-processed foods, but the suggestion was a bit unclear and woolly. We will continue to support the Commission's efforts in Europe.
	Total UK public spending on food and farming research amounts to about £350 million. I should be interested to know how much the Opposition parties think it ought to be and whether they are committed to a larger sum, but in any event we will increase our spending over the next five years.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the banning of battery cages by 2012. As I think I said at the most recent DEFRA Question Time and will, I suspect, say again on 1 February, we fully support the 2012 ban and will continue to press the Commission on it. We will do what we can to protect the British egg sector against any fall-back by the Commission. As far as we know, there has been no formal application for non-implementation of the ban, and we will work to ensure that it is implemented.
	The bronze level of the healthier food mark still requires meat and meat products to meet Red Tractor or equivalent standards, although other products, such as dairy products, fruit and vegetables, have been moved to the "potential" list, because those running the healthier food mark scheme considered the Red Tractor standard to be too complex and costly to implement. A consultation on the Red Tractor healthier food mark will begin shortly, but it is not strictly accurate to say that the scheme has been dropped.
	The draft Bill on responsibility and cost-sharing will be published soon, and the advisory group chaired by Rosemary Radcliffe will give its view at the end of the year. We are keen for there to be as much scrutiny as possible, because we recognise the issues that are at stake.
	I believe that the Secretary of State has made a written statement about the infected Romanian horses, but if that is not the case I will write to those on both the Opposition Front Benches to ensure that they are aware of the facts. Because the situation arose only this week and is still developing, it is possible that no formal position has yet been outlined.
	I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about other Departments and food waste, and I will act on it.
	We had a good discussion with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the ombudsmen and costs. We do not believe-
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A).
	 Sitting suspended (Standing Order No. 20).

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if the amendments relating to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] be debated together with those relating to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords].

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we will take amendments 3, 74, 7, 24, 8, 25, 9, 26, 10 to 12, 27, 13, 14, 28, 15 to 17, 29 to 31 and 18 to 23 to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], and amendments 2, 3 to 5, 34, 9, 26, 10, 37, 11, 28, 12 to 14, 29, 15, 16, 30, 17 to 19, 31 to 33 and 20 to 25 to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords].

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to move amendment 2, which is supported by four hon. Friends. With it, we will discuss 27 other amendments on the Bournemouth Bill and 28 on the Manchester Bill. In this debate, it will become apparent that the amendments go to the heart of the concerns that have been expressed by many people about the wide-ranging content of the Bills and the potential impact on the livelihoods and very survival of pedlars the length and breadth of the country.
	Amendment 2 needs to be considered with other amendments, but it is designed to ensure that pedlary and trading are treated as separate activities. For too long, some councils have equated street trading with pedlary and, by extension, rogue and unlawful street trading with lawful pedlary. That is at the root of the problem. That issue is addressed in the detailed amendments to clause 5, which I shall discuss shortly. However, I shall take the amendments sequentially, so I shall start with amendment 3, which would delete clause 4.
	I tabled amendment 3 because clause 4 extends the application of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to services. For example, as we have discussed during earlier stages, services might include teeth whitening, or applying an artificial tattoo to someone's skin. Since the Bill was drafted back in 2007, however, there has been an important legislative development-the implementation under UK law of the European Union services directive by means of a statutory instrument. I had the honour to chair the Committee that considered the statutory instrument. Under the directive, which came into effect on 31 December last year, pedlars of services only will no longer need a pedlars certificate, and those obtained by pedlars of services before the changes came into effect will continue to apply until they expire.
	I tabled amendment 3 to try to draw the Minister on the important issue of the interaction between the services directive and pedlary, and the provisions in the Bill. That point was referred to briefly last week on Third Reading of the Nottingham City Council Bill and the Canterbury City Council Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, in a throwaway line, that he thought that the advent of the services directive had made the extension of the Bills to cover services redundant. Since then, I have received a letter from the agents acting for the promoters of the two Bills before us today stating that they assume that the effect of the services directive interacting with the rules relating to pedlars will be different. However, the whole issue is up in the air. By proposing that we leave out clause 4, I thought that we could try to probe the representatives of the promoters in the Chamber or the Minister on the interaction with the services directive.
	The importance of the services directive is that it enables people who are supplying services and resident in other parts of the EU to come to this country and continue supplying those services without inhibition or legal restriction. To carry on activities as a pedlar in the UK, the person concerned needs to obtain a pedlars certificate, which they can from any police authority in the land if they can establish that they are of good character. Importantly, however, they must also establish that they have been resident for some time at a fixed address within the area of the police authority to which they applied for the pedlars certificate.
	The provision relating to pedlars is at odds with the services directive, because it is regarded by the EU as an unreasonable restraint on the right of somebody to work wherever they wish within the EU. UK law currently states that one can engage in pedlary only if one is resident and has a fixed abode in the UK; one does not have to be British, but one has to show evidence of residence here. So at the very time that the services directive has been brought into law, we have before us a Bill that purports to extend the scope of pedlary to services. I find that rather confusing. It seems to me that clause 4 is probably redundant.
	Much of the stuff that comes from Brussels is pretty impenetrable to people of ordinary intelligence such as Members of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister, with the benefit of legal advice from people who are better remunerated and wiser, will be able to guide us through the interaction of the services directive with pedlary and explain to us whether, in the light of its implementation, he too believes that clause 4 is redundant and superfluous, not to mention rather confusing.

John Butterfill: rose-

Christopher Chope: I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend is going to enlighten me about that.

John Butterfill: Surely leaving out clause 4, which would extend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to the provision of services in the street, would do the very reverse of what my hon. Friend is suggesting, because there is no residency requirement under that Act. Extending it in that way would be helpful to pedlars, rather than the reverse.

Christopher Chope: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain that point more clearly to me. As for the application of the 1982 Act, my understanding is that Bournemouth borough council is seeking to take more control over people who provide services than it has under existing law. I find it hard to understand how that will be in the best interests of pedlars.

Tobias Ellwood: We have had Bills from councils in other areas across the country, which are already in place as Acts and have been for a number of years-we are in one such area now: London has the exact legislation that we are seeking in Bournemouth-and they are also subject to the 1982 Act, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) referred. I am not aware-perhaps those on the Front Bench can illuminate this point for me-of any requirement to change legislation in any of those places, whether it be London, Liverpool, Maidstone, Leicester, Medway or Newcastle. All those places have had their own borough council Bills, which is what we are seeking today. All have been able to work with the same legislation, despite the 1982 Act.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but I am not sure that he understands my main point, which is that since the 1982 Act was introduced we have had the services directive, which came into effect on 31 December. Although other local Bills might have been enacted with equivalent provisions to those contained in clause 4, I do not think that it is open to Parliament-my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has different views about this-to bring forward legislation that is inconsistent with a European directive.

Andrew Murrison: Is my hon. Friend therefore saying that since the enactment of the services directive, the measures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) referred have become ultra vires?

Christopher Chope: I think I am saying that, yes. The implementation of the directive serves as the automatic repeal of those provisions, which is why I cannot understand why, when we are considering a Bill that is not yet on the statute book, we should be seeking to put provisions such as those in clause 4 into law, in prima facie breach, in my view, of the services directive.

Peter Bone: May I offer some clarification? We could not place restrictions on doctors coming in from the European Union and offering their services. That has been made clear despite what the General Medical Council might wish to do. Is not that the kind of thing that we are talking about? If the services directive is in force, people have the right to bring their services here, so this restriction would be ultra vires under European law.

Christopher Chope: I am delighted that my hon. Friend's interpretation is the same as mine.
	The Government are consulting on a document at the moment. It was issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on 6 November 2009, and it is entitled "A joint consultation on modernising Street Trading and Pedlar Legislation, and on draft guidance on the current regime". On page 29, there is a whole series of paragraphs under the heading "Services Directive". Paragraph 113 might be of particular interest to hon. Members, because it states:
	"Incidentally, we understand that those local authorities who apply street trading licensing to service providers are required to justify that those regimes operate within the requirements of the Services Directive. If they are unable to do so those authorisation schemes will need to be removed insofar as they apply to service providers."

Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend therefore arguing that a pedlar who is an EU citizen who is stopped in Bournemouth could appeal under the services directive and carry on trading in Bournemouth high street, but that a home-grown English pedlar who could not appeal under the directive could be driven from the streets? Would not that be unfair?

Christopher Chope: It would certainly be unfair, if that were the position. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's interpretation is quite correct, however. The pedlar would have to be offering services, rather than trading, within the terms of the legislation relating to pedlars. If he were offering services, and came under the category of service provider, that would be exactly the sort of jeopardy in which he would be placed.
	Paragraph 114 of the consultation report from the Minister's Department states:
	"It may be possible to institute a national system of authorisation for service providers within the requirements of the Services Directive although we are conscious that our justification for imposing such a scheme may be challenged in respect of the qualifying criteria. However, we are of the view that attempting to introduce such a system in respect of a small number of pedlars of services only, would not be a proportionate response to any perceived detriment which may result from the situation where no certification or authorisation scheme exists."
	That paragraph seems slightly self-contradictory.
	Paragraph 115 states that
	"the Services Directive applies stricter tests in relation to authorisation schemes in respect of temporary providers of services in the UK to the extent that any scheme which might be capable of applying to established pedlars of services could not apply to temporary pedlars of services visiting the UK."
	That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has just made. The paragraph continues:
	"This inconsistency of application would be unfair to established pedlars and would introduce significant enforcement difficulties."
	So, there is a real issue here.
	I know that my good hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) are sceptical about some of the arguments that I deploy on this legislation-both of them have intervened on me on this point-but I hope that we will be able to get an answer from the Minister on this question. It will be relevant not only to the two Bills that we are discussing today, but to the two that we discussed last week, which are now on their way to the other place, as well as to the other two Bills on the Order Paper, which we are not discussing at the moment.

John Thurso: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on the services directive; I shall wait to see whether it is right or wrong. If the services directive were not in force, would he still wish to strike down this clause, or would he be content with it?

Christopher Chope: In fairness, I have not at any previous stage of our debates on this Bill raised an issue about clause 4. I was alerted to the issue only after reading the Government's consultation paper and having had the privilege of chairing the Committee I mentioned. In fairness to myself, and perhaps to the hon. Gentleman's surprise, I would not otherwise have sought to amend clause 4 in respect of pedlars providing services. I hope that that clarifies the matter. It is an issue on which we look forward to hearing the Minister's views so that we can make a judgment. It is implicit in what we have heard so far from my hon. Friends who represent Bournemouth constituencies that the promoters of the Bill believe that it is right to go ahead with clause 4, notwithstanding the advent of the services directive.
	I now move on to deal with the large number of amendments that we are debating in tandem with amendment 2. I start with amendment 74, which relates to clause 5. I shall not read out all the words in the amendment, but I will say that those words provide a much better and clearer way of setting out what the Bill's promoters have to some extent been asking for, which is to ensure that pedlars with large trolleys are no longer able to operate within Bournemouth-or the city of Manchester. The amendment would allow pedlars with
	"a wheeled vehicle with a carrying capacity no greater than one cubic metre"
	to continue to operate. It would allow them to continue "trading", including
	"the display or offer of items for sale."
	In other words, it would not alter the definition of pedlary in the existing statutes.

Edward Leigh: This is the kernel of the matter. There is absolutely no point in driving small-scale pedlars off the street only to have them bothering people door to door. These people will go on trading anywhere anyway. It is better to regulate them on the street in a small-scale way than have them bothering people in their houses.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that I would concede that pedlars bother people in their houses. There is a perception these days that many householders do not want to be harassed by people knocking on their doors, seeking their attention or selling goods door to door. Quite a lot put up notices on their front door, saying "No hawkers or pedlars" or refusing delivery of circulars and the like.
	However, we know from evidence produced for the Durham university report published about a year ago that in city centres quite a lot of people enjoy being able to engage with pedlars and to purchase goods-usually relatively small-value items-and to do so in the freedom of the open air. These people would not want to be bothered with offers on a door-to-door basis. Some pedlars sell balloons or mini-kites-goods more associated with people on holiday who may have their children with them, people who want to have a bit of fun at not very great expense. It is much easier for pedlars to meet those sorts of people in the streets in the town centre, near the seafront or wherever, rather than have to seek them out by calling door to door.
	Reading and Leeds, two of the councils in the group of six bringing forward the Bills, have accepted amendments to clause 5 that are more restrictive than my amendment 74. Their Bills are proceeding on that basis, and their Report stages and Third Readings are coming up shortly. I have included provisions relating to people being able not just to carry goods on their person but in
	"a wheeled vehicle with a carrying capacity no greater than one cubic metre pushed or pulled by him."
	That is because the issue was referred to in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which concluded that clause 5, as originally drafted by the promoters from Bournemouth and Manchester, was too restrictive of the traditional right of pedlars to operate. After listening to the evidence, it proposed amendments which are set out in the minutes of evidence.
	At the end of the Committee, it was concluded that the Bills should be amended to take on those concerns. On Wednesday 1 July 2009, at page 63 of the minutes of evidence, the Committee Chairman said, at paragraph 1119:
	"Clause 5 is amended as follows...The pedlar trading house to house survives; for those not trading house to house their goods or tools or handicraft must be carried on foot on the person or in a trolley pushed or pulled by the person with a carrying capacity of no more than one cubic metre; they must not stop in one place for more than five minutes".
	Many more detailed constraints followed. The detail, which is now reflected in the revised wording of clause 5, adds nothing that is worth while, and is likely to cause confusion, as it is an attempt to introduce through the back door a redefinition of what a pedlar can do lawfully. It picks pieces out of the common law, puts them in statute, and applies them to the two localities in Bournemouth and Manchester.

John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend not agree that his proposal in fact extends what pedlars can do under the current legislation? At present, they have to carry such items with them. The introduction of wheeled vehicles of some sort extends, rather than breaches, their existing rights.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is not correct about that. Under the existing law, they are entitled to take goods with them not only on their person but using equipment. I quote from page 2 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which defines a pedlar as
	"a person who, without any horse or other beast, travels and trades on foot from town to town carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares or merchandise or procuring orders for the same, or selling or offering for sale his skill and handicraft".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to ensure that I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully. Which amendment is he addressing at the moment?

Christopher Chope: I am addressing amendment 74, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about clause 5.

Christopher Chope: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that clause 5 is dealt with in the next set of amendments.

Christopher Chope: I was merely trying to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to anticipate the debate on a subsequent group of amendments, and I will not be drawn any further down that avenue.
	I am trying to explain to my hon. Friend that the wording of amendment 74 is not less but more restrictive than the wording of the current law, because under the current law there is no specific limit to the carrying capacity of the vehicle that the pedlar takes with him in order to conduct his business.

Andrew Murrison: As politicians, we know full well how easy it is to expand carrying capacity. Any one of us who has set up a street stall will know that. What concerns local authorities is the problem of clutter and the blocking of ease of access for people going about their normal business. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that from this definition of carrying capacity does not emerge a table or stand of some sort that the pedlar might use? Might not a restriction in that regard make good sense?

Christopher Chope: I agree. That is why I have made the suggestion in amendment 74, and that is why, when I discussed these issues with the promoters of the Leeds and Reading Bills, I went even further and conceded-to the chagrin of some pedlars-that, in the particular circumstances of Leeds and Reading, it would be reasonable not to allow the pedlar to have anything with him other than the goods on his person.
	The clear rationale set out in the main letter from the chief executive of Manchester city council, and in the separate letter from the leader of the council, which was well circulated-it was sent to a number of councils, encouraging them to ask their local Members of Parliament to participate in today's debate-is that the mischief that the Bills wish to address is that of wheeled vehicles drawn by so-called pedlars which are causing obstructions in town centres.
	Obviously I would think that my own amendment was a good one, but it seems to me that amendment 74 clearly expresses a way of meeting the intentions of the amendments tabled by members of the Opposed Private Bill Committee without creating a complicated new provision that would offend all the principles of good regulation.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend had me worried a moment ago. He referred to bringing a horse or beast. Would his amendment prevent a pedlar from bringing his horse or his beast into play?

Christopher Chope: Effectively, it would. My hon. Friend is an experienced practitioner of the law, and he knows that if a pedlar had a horse or a beast with him, he could not possibly comply with the terms of amendment 74. However, that is-as lawyers would say-an academic point, rather than one of practical substance. However, that comment might sound rather more critical than I intended to be of my hon. Friend.
	Amendment 74 is essentially a new clause, replacing clause 5. Importantly, proposed new sub-paragraph (2B) states:
	"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2A)(b), above 'trading' includes the display or offer of items for sale."
	Clause 5 currently does not make that clear, but it is vital that that provision of the pedlars legislation is retained intact.
	Many of my other amendments in this group remove the worst inaccuracies or ambiguities from the interpretations that the Bill's promoters have put on the words of the Opposed Private Bill Committee. They are, therefore, alternative amendments to amendment 74. That amendment effectively completely redrafts clause 5, but each of these other amendments tweaks a part of the clause that gives the wrong impression and would make bad law if unamended.
	Amendment 7 would delete the word "only" from clause 5(1)(a). By inserting that word there, for the purposes of the Bill, its promoters narrow the definition of "pedlar" from the existing definition as restated in the 1982 Act, and I do not think that that can be accidental. Amendment 7 would delete the word "only" in respect of trading that is carried out
	"by means of visits from house to house"
	and so forth.
	Amendment 24 seeks clarity. I received strong representations on this matter from pedlars. They think "location" is far too broad a term. The Opposed Private Bill Committee used the word "place" in its recommendations, rather than "location", but I think the word "position" conveys a much better and more precise definition. A pedlar would then be in a particular position-standing on a square space of a few paving stones, perhaps-rather than in a "location", which might be regarded as a particular street or a much wider area. I hope that this amendment will find favour with the promoters of the Bill, because it more accurately conveys the intentions of the Opposed Bill Committee and will avoid a lot of argument about what is meant by "location".

Peter Bone: I agree with my hon. Friend that this amendment seeks to make an important minor change, which would clarify the Bill enormously. I recall great debates that have taken place when section 106 agreements have said that money should be spent "locally" and that has been defined so widely as to have become something spent in the region. The tighter we can draw the Bill, the better. This amendment is small, but important.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my amendment. He will know that the word "location" appears not only in clause 5, line 20, page 3, but in many other clauses. I shall not recite all those, but the consequential, similar amendments are set out in this group.
	Amendment 8 seeks to reflect accurately common law case law on the interpretation of how long it is reasonable for a pedlar to stay in one position when complying with his duties and responsibilities under a pedlar's certificate. There is quite a lot of case law-I shall not refer to the tomes on it-suggesting that anything up to 20 minutes is reasonable for a pedlar to spend in one position and after that the pedlar needs to move on. Clause 5 says that it would not be possible for a pedlar to stay in one position for more than five minutes. That is unduly restrictive, and a 15-minute period would be more reflective of case law. In order to demonstrate the reasonableness of this and other amendments, I have not gone to the extreme of the ambit by proposing, in line with some case law, a 20 minute limit-there is even a case that suggested a stay of up to half an hour or longer. I thought that 15 minutes would be reasonable and proposed it in the hope that it would find favour with the promoters of the Bill.

Andrew Murrison: I have been listening to my hon. Friend's remarks, which make some sense to me. Would it help if he distinguished between a pedlar providing services, notwithstanding what he has said about the services directive, and those providing goods for sale? Providing goods for sale takes little time, whereas providing a service-he mentioned teeth whitening-will take rather more than five minutes. Indeed, one would hope that it would, so perhaps a distinction should be drawn between the two.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he makes a powerful point about having a five-minute time limit on the provision of services by a pedlar. I am no expert in teeth whitening-his medical knowledge probably means that he knows more about what is involved-but I do not think that that service could easily be executed to the right standard in five minutes, so perhaps 15 minutes would be a more reasonable limit. I agree with him that that should apply to services. In order to try to reduce the complexity, we would be better to adopt the same time limit for pedlars providing services as for pedlars who are trading, selling or displaying goods. What would happen if people were providing both teeth whitening and, perhaps, selling toothpaste? They would be both selling and providing services and that could cause problems with enforcement.

Andrew Murrison: It would, of course, depend on precisely what they were doing-if they were acting as a provider of services, or if they were acting as a pedlar of goods. In the event that they were doing both, the former would clearly take precedence over the latter.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I shall not argue with him.
	The sad thing is that we are now faced with a situation in which this Bill is now being considered on Report-it has already been through the other place-and the scope for amending it beyond the amendments tabled today is non-existent. I think my hon. Friend, in fairness, is faced with the choice of supporting the provision of five minutes for all pedlars, including pedlars of services, or amendment 8, which would delete the reference to five minutes and insert 15 minutes.

John Butterfill: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that five minutes was what the Committee, after a lot of deliberation, thought was reasonable, and that 20 minutes was well beyond what it thought was reasonable. At 20 minutes, the definition starts to become more like that of a street trader than of a pedlar. The essence of a pedlar is that he moves along.

Christopher Chope: I accept what my hon. Friend says. That is why I am not going as far as to suggest 20 minutes, and why I am proposing a 15-minute compromise. Having read the transcript of the proceedings in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, I doubt whether the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) about its being very hard to provide some services within five minutes was taken on board at all.

Edward Leigh: All this is nonsense. Who is going to police all this rubbish of insisting that someone stays for five minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes? It is much better to have a less restrictive time limit, as my hon. Friend is trying to propose. The principle would be that they have to move on, rather than their being told to move on after five minutes. Who would police it? The police have better things to do.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. The issues of seizure, penalties and enforcement are dealt with later. We must try, in this great Palace of Westminster where we legislate, to introduce a bit of common sense and practicality into the laws that we introduce. If they are effectively unenforceable, we are going to make ourselves even more of a laughing stock than we are already.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is being very generous. Will he explain a point to the House and to me? In clause 5, proposed new sub-paragraph (2A)(a)(i) states
	"at the end of the five minute period, or"-
	as (ii) states-
	"as soon as he is able after trading ceases, whichever comes later".
	That seems to drive a coach and horses through any time limit. Have I misread it?

Christopher Chope: Basically, that demonstrates how complicated this drafting has become. We are talking about a set of rules that are meant to be easily understood, remembered and complied with by pedlars who have had their certificates issued anywhere in the UK and who come down to Bournemouth and go to Manchester. Will they find it easy to understand these precise constraints, which will be unique to the Bournemouth and Manchester areas if they become law today?
	I think that the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is that a very tight time limit of five minutes may lead to a queue of customers asking, "Hang on a minute, can I buy one of those?", to which the response will be, "No, because my five minutes are up."
	Unless people are within sight of the town hall clock, it will be quite difficult for them to be cognisant of when they arrived and of how long they can enjoy selling wares to willing customers.

Edward Leigh: What do people do when their five minutes is up? Do they take one step to the right, or 15 steps? We are in danger of making the law an ass.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend anticipates my amendment 9. Line 28 of page 3 says that after a pedlar has left a location-or, as I would prefer to say, a position-he must move a minimum distance of 200 metres before he can engage in further trading. He will therefore say to customers rushing down the street after him as he walks away, "I can't trade with you now because I have not done my 200 yards"-as I would call the distance. Again, that is absolutely ludicrous-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is being tempted to move from amendment to amendment. He is doing very well, but it would be helpful if he would move logically from amendment to amendment. If he deals with amendment 9 now, we will consider it dealt with.

Christopher Chope: I was trying to go logically through the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have dealt with amendment 8, which would leave out "five" and insert "fifteen", but I have not referred to amendment 25, as it is another one that would replace the word "location" with the word "position" and I have already deployed the arguments in that regard.
	As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that brings us to amendment 9. For those who are following the debate and have a copy of the Bill, that amendment refers to line 28 of page 3 and reads:
	"leave out '200' and insert '20'."
	For a pedlar to establish that he has moved, there is no need for him to move 200 metres. I have already said why I do not believe that setting a minimum distance requires such a highly prescriptive form of legislation but, if that is what we must have, my proposal is that the Bill should set the more reasonable distance of 20 rather than 200 metres.
	I would be the first to accept that that is an arbitrary judgment on my part, but my 20-metre proposal would still make it clear that a person had moved and could then continue with his transactions.

Tobias Ellwood: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has finally admitted that these are, in essence, wrecking amendments that would change the Bill in its entirety and render it unworkable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has said that a person moving one inch could not be policed, but that is exactly what would happen if the distance were to be reduced from 200 metres to 20 metres. How could that possibly be policed? Two hundred metres is a decent distance: with that, and a time limit of five minutes, there would be no doubt about what was happening.
	I do not want to test the House's patience, but the Bill makes it clear that the provisions apply only when trading has ceased. So a person getting his teeth whitened will not have to give up the service halfway through, and the trader will be able to deal with any queue that has formed before moving on. The drafting of the Bill is sound, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not giving it the justice that it deserves.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not for the first time, two hon. Members have reached different conclusions about what should be the right form of the legislation. However, clause 5 and the amendments tabled as a result of the deliberations in the Opposed Private Bill Committee show that the members of that Committee, and now the Bill's promoters, have tried to encapsulate in statute the case law that has arisen.
	There is no evidence to suggest that case law requires a pedlar to move between each set of transactions a distance of 200 metres rather than 20 metres, which is the distance that I suggest in amendment 9. I strongly dissent from my hon. Friend's suggestion that that is a wrecking amendment. It is not. The amendment has been selected for debate, and it is based upon representations that I have received. I have modified them not only to make them more reasonable, but to bring them closer than might otherwise have been possible to the concerns expressed.

Tobias Ellwood: With due respect to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, is he honestly saying that, in a period of three hours, the introduction of 81 separate amendments is not designed to wreck the Bill?

Christopher Chope: It is absolutely not designed to wreck the Bill; it is designed to improve the Bill.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to put down wrecking amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If an amendment was put down and seen to be a wrecking amendment, it would not be called for debate. However, it will help if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) lets us know each time he moves from one amendment to another, and help if he keeps ticking along.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely.

Peter Bone: I am looking with some concern at clause 5(1)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) refers to
	"visits from house to house".
	In Wellingborough, houses are often right next door to each other; they are certainly not 200 metres apart. Have I misread that provision? If one employed a 200 metre provision, one could not go from house to house.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has misread that provision, because it applies to pedlars trading not from house to house, but in the streets. I am sorry to be blunt with him about that.

Andrew Murrison: But the provision would apply, presumably, to the "lucky lavender" seller who peddles her wares-throughout the summer, certainly-on Westminster bridge. She does not move very far and cannot, poor thing, because of all the passing traffic, so it would apply to her, would it not?

Christopher Chope: It most certainly would apply to her, and my hon. Friend raises an important issue, because the Bill's promoters would argue that that lavender seller is just the sort of person who is outlawed under similar legislation that has been enacted in London. Returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made about enforcement, and notwithstanding the legislation in London, we still see such activity continuing, however. So, even if the intention was to stop a lavender seller operating in Bournemouth town centre, I am not sure that it would be realised in practice. We will turn later to whether it should be possible to seize and hold the lavender seller's lavender until a fixed penalty has been paid, but we should not anticipate that debate.
	Amendment 10 would leave out from clause 5
	"in any 12 hour period"
	and, taking into account amendment 11, mean that the location that a pedlar occupied with a view to trading would have to be at a minimum distance from any other one that he had so occupied at any time within a period of "two hours".
	Amendments 10 and 11 would make the provisions more akin to those that apply, for example, to restricted waiting for cars. A lot of waiting restrictions say that someone cannot stay in one particular parking bay for more than, say, half an hour, and they must not return to that same location within two hours. I have yet to come across any parking restriction that says that they cannot come back within 12 hours, because it would be very difficult to enforce that: who is going to stand in a location for 12 hours to see whether the person comes back? I am trying to introduce some common sense into this.

Tobias Ellwood: I think that common sense is something that we wandered away from some time ago. My hon. Friend has described a situation where a pedlar can, over any two-hour period, move a maximum distance of about 160 metres. How is that possibly going to be useful from a town centre perspective of controlling street traders and pedlars? This is getting daft.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has multiplied my 15 minutes by 20 metres. He is saying that in any hour the pedlar would have to move 80 metres, so in two hours he would have to move 160 metres. With the greatest respect, that does not seem unreasonable, because the pedlar is continuing to move around. Obviously, if he does not have any trade in one particular position, he will move more frequently, but if he has quite a lot of trade, then he will do as is suggested, which would be perfectly in order under the current legislation applying to pedlars. I disagree with my hon. Friend.
	As currently worded, the provisions mean that a pedlar would not be able to return within a 12-hour period to any place that he has occupied. Taking all the original wording together, that means that he would have to travel 200 metres every five minutes over a 12-hour period. If we multiply that out-I am not so good at mental arithmetic when I am on my feet-it is clear that he would have to travel quite a long way. I suggest that that is unreasonable, particularly when coupled with the requirement that having travelled those distances the person must not return to a location that is less than 5 metres away from any position that he has occupied during the previous 12 hours.

Tobias Ellwood: The Pedlars Act 1871 says that a pedlar
	"travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town".
	From that, one can deduce that they are on the move fairly regularly. Therefore, it makes sense to provide that a person could move the distance that we are talking about-200 metres-and then move locations over a 12-hour period with a view to trading at a minimum distance of 5 metres away from a position that he has occupied before. That fits with the 1871 Act.

Christopher Chope: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is for Parliament to legislate and for the judges to interpret that legislation. The interpretation placed on the 1871 Act by successive members of the judiciary is contrary to that of my hon. Friend. I think it is better for us to proceed on the basis that we should try to align these provisions with the existing common law interpretation.

Edward Leigh: We have the 1871 Act, and my hon. Friend is obviously in touch with the peddling community. If I were a pedlar who had done this for years, I cannot believe that I would think in terms of 200 metres, or whatever. I would think in terms of having, from time to time, to move on, because that is what is bred into me by my community. Are we not being far too prescriptive? Cannot we just go back to the broad interpretation that we have always had under the 1871 Act and common law?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes the plea that we have been making throughout the deliberations on these Bills. The whole issue of what we should do now in the national context will soon be on the Minister's table, because he has put out a big paper for consultation. We will see from the responses to it what the Government decide to do, but it would be very odd if the House decided to have a different, prescriptive regime for what we mean by "moving on" for the purposes of pedlars operating in Bournemouth and Manchester compared with what judges up and down the land have said is reasonable for pedlars operating in other parts of the country. I am very much with my hon. Friend on that.
	I move on to amendment 12, which would leave out lines 34 to 37. The provisions that I have criticised would be less offensive if those lines were left out, because they state that a pedlar
	"must not begin so to occupy a location any part of which is nearer than a minimum distance of 50 metres from any part of a location for the time being so occupied by another person".
	That means that a pedlar who had finished his five minutes of trading would not be able to move anywhere else, other than some 200 metres away, if the new position were within 50 metres of another person.

Edward Leigh: Absurd. Absolutely absurd.

Christopher Chope: It is, and I plead with the sponsors of the Bill to make some concession to common sense. As currently drafted, clause 5(1)(d) does not make any sense at all and is oppressive beyond all measure. The case for leaving it out and getting on without it is extremely strong.
	Amendment 13 would leave out, in line 34 on page 3, the words "any part of". It is an alternative but much less adequate way to mitigate against the worst impact of subsection (1)(d). The amendment would mean that a pedlar
	"must not begin so to occupy a location"-
	or, in my preferred wording, a position-
	"which is nearer than a minimum distance of 50 metres"
	from another person. The expression "any part of" gives credence to the concern that I expressed earlier when introducing my amendments to replace the word "location" with the word "position", which is that the drafters of the Bill have it in mind that a "location" might be quite a wide area. If it were not, they would not need to include the words
	"any part of which is nearer than a minimum distance of 50 metres".
	It would be quite easy to measure 50 metres from a spot where one was standing selling flowers or whatever, but from what part of that position or location should that be done? That wording confirms my suspicion and that of pedlars that in using the word "location", the promoters are trying to introduce a system of measuring not from a particular spot or position but from a wide area.
	We must then ask what we mean by that location or area and how to measure the 50 metres minimum distance from the nearest part of it to "any part of" another
	"location for the time being so occupied by another person".
	Government draftsmen would find such drafting intolerable in Government legislation-it cannot be good legislation.
	I can understand people asking why we must go into such detail-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is extremely clearly set out. Presumably he is either for or against it.

Christopher Chope: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very much for the amendment and against the contents of the measure.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is explaining the amendments in great detail. Would it be helpful to the House if on occasion the sponsors of the Bill intervened to say that they accept an amendment? In that way, we could move a bit faster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is very experienced in these matters. Perhaps he could speak to the amendment before the House, and not to how these things are done.

Christopher Chope: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I live in anticipation of getting a helpful response from the Minister that would in due course result in one of my hon. Friends summing up the debate by saying that quite a lot of the amendments have been accepted by the sponsors. I would be the first to raise my hat to the roof in celebration of such common-sense concessions, which I am sure should be made in due course.
	I will not discuss amendments 14 and 28, because I have made the case for those in previous discussions. Amendment 15 would mean that the pedlar could not move within a minimum distance of 50 metres of another pedlar, rather than simply "another person". There must have been an error in the drafting of the Bill, because it is complete nonsense that someone should have to be 50 metres away from any other person. I pray in aid the explanatory memorandum which, in explaining the alterations to the pedlars' exception in clause 5 and summarising the essential requirements, states that
	"no trading must be commenced any nearer than 50 metres from another person trading with the authority of a pedlars' certificate".
	The explanatory memorandum adds the words
	"with the authority of a pedlars' certificate",
	but that is not in the Bill. I hope that someone will intervene to assure me that there has indeed been a drafting error, because the intent, as expressed in the explanatory memorandum, is that the minimum distance-whether one likes that or not-should be from another pedlar, rather than from "another person".

Edward Leigh: If one is 50 metres from a pedlar, what is all the fuss about? It is not as though high streets are being invaded by a rash of pedlars standing every 5 metres. What does it matter if there is a pedlar every 50 metres or every 100 metres, or indeed only every 45 metres? It is ludicrous.

Christopher Chope: I do not dissent from the use of the word "ludicrous". The existing wording however provides that the pedlar would not be able to move within 50 metres of anyone. If he has to find a position at least 50 metres from anyone else, people will think that he needs a bath or something-

Edward Leigh: He probably does!

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is being unfair. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will accept that that is an error. That would be a modest but welcome concession.
	Clause 5 lays out several things that a person must do
	"at all times while...trading"
	or "otherwise occupying any location". Amendment 16 would insert the words "acting as a pedlar" after "at all times while", so that we would not restrict the ambit of the rules and responsibilities relating to pedlars. Acting as a pedlar includes offering one's goods for sale so that people may look at them and discuss what is available-it might even involve taking an order to be delivered on a subsequent occasion. The amendment would add clarity and precision to the Bill.
	Amendment 17 would remove all the restrictions in proposed new sub-paragraph (e), which would help to clarify the Bill. We know what activity is legitimate activity for a pedlar, and to define that activity more narrowly would contradict the express statement of the Opposed Private Bill Committee that nothing it did would amend the definition of pedlar. That was its intention as stated in paragraph 1119 on page 63 of the transcript of day two, which quotes the Chairman as saying:
	"We are not attempting to redefine peddler."
	However, there is an attempt to redefine pedlar, which is raising all sorts of concerns and suspicions among pedlars.
	Amendments 29 and 30 relate to the point that I made earlier about the benefits of using the words "position" or "positions" rather than "location" and "locations". The same is true of amendment 31.
	Amendment 18 would leave out "bona fide" on page 4, line 4 in clause 5, which instead of referring to customers, talks about bona fide customers. I am not sure that it will be easy for people to find out who is a bona fide customer. The provision states:
	"Nothing in sub-paragraph (2A)(b) to (d)...disqualifies any person from occupying a location within a minimum distance for the purpose of trading if...he so occupies it on the request of a bona fide customer".
	Does that mean that the customer has to complete a purchase for the pedlar's position to be validated? How is any observer of the scene to assess whether the customer is bona fide?

Edward Leigh: Again, that is a completely subjective test-it is not an objective test. Why does this Parliament have this relentless itch to change, regulate and control? How many complaints against pedlars are there? My information is that on average there is one complaint per authority in this country. Yet we are introducing this new law, which is unasked for, unwanted and will control the ability of people to engage in enterprise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I encourage the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to stick to the amendment before the House.

Christopher Chope: I will stick to the amendment, and just note my hon. Friend's remarks.
	I am trying, through the amendments, to improve clause 5 and hoping that we will get some assistance from the sponsors.

Tobias Ellwood: I am conscious of progress-or perhaps the lack of it, as we wander through the amendments-and hope that we might see a conclusion today. Given that my hon. Friend has invited the sponsors of the Bill to provide some clarification, I shall explain the reason for the reference to "bona fide". Hon. Members might like to wander outside their own constituencies to places such as Manchester and Bournemouth, where stooges are used to keep pedlars occupied and so prevent them from moving on as they should. That is the reason for the reference to "bona fide". If my hon. Friend does not like the Latin "bona fide", he could easily have suggested "genuine". However, that is the explanation. It is a reality that stooges are used to prevent movement and deliberately to keep the pedlar in one location.

Christopher Chope: Well, that is the first that I have heard of that suggestion.

Tobias Ellwood: It was made in Committee, actually.

Christopher Chope: Well, in that case, I defer to my hon. Friend's expertise. I stand corrected; it was raised in Committee. I obviously skim-read that bit and did not notice the reference. However, the point that I would make in response is this: who is to decide whether the customer is bona fide or a stooge? There have been, I think, six prosecutions for illegal pedlary in Bournemouth over a two-year period. Proportionally, to include "bona fide" on lines 4 and 11 in relation to a customer is pushing the ambit of the prescription and regulation too far.

Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) suggesting that I am a stooge trying to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) going in business?

Christopher Chope: I shall not be drawn into that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My patience is now being strained.

Christopher Chope: Amendment 19 is similar to amendment 18 in that it would leave out "bona fide" on page 4, line 11. I do not need to address my remarks to that.
	Amendment 20 reads:
	"leave out from 'customer' to end of line 13",
	on page 4. The effect of amendment 20 would be to enable the person to carry on trading from the time that he commences a transaction involving selling goods to a customer or supplying a service for payment by a customer, because it would leave out the words
	"up to the moment when the transaction is completed or aborted".
	Again, that would add a lot of clarity and reduce the restrictions in the Bill. Amendment 20 is perhaps not the most important amendment, but it nevertheless merits serious attention. Amendment 21 would leave out the words "bona fide" from clause 5, on page 4, line 15, although I will not go over that ground again.
	Then we come to amendment 22, which would leave out lines 20 to 24 on page 4, removing the requirements relating to measurements of minimum distance. Everyone understands what a minimum distance is and why I am against references to minimum distances, and certainly the short distances referred to in clause 5. Everybody knows how to measure a distance, and we do not need to define it as tightly as the Bill does, which says that the
	"measurement of minimum distance operates in a straight line except to the extent that...the ground is not level"-
	I am slightly confused by what that means-or that the
	"passage along the line is obstructed by buildings, fixed structures or private property".
	If we are to have any confidence in common sense, surely we do not need the degree of prescription in proposed new paragraph 1(2C)(b) of schedule 4 to the 1982 Act, as set out in clause 5, on lines 20 to 24 of page 4.
	The last amendment in this group is amendment 23, which is arguably one of the most important amendments, because it bears directly on the quotation that I gave a moment ago of the Chairman of the Opposed Private Bill Committee, who said that there was no intention on the part of that Committee to redefine the word "pedlar". It is my submission that clause 5(2) should not say:
	"Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken to extend the range of activities that comprise acting as a pedlar."
	The Bill as drafted restricts the range of activities that comprise acting as a pedlar, compared with the activities set out under the Pedlars Act 1871 and the case law under it. It would be much clearer, and would also reflect more accurately the express intentions of the Chairman and other members of the Opposed Private Bill Committee, if clause 5(2) said that nothing in subsection (1) should be taken to "restrict" the range of activities that comprise acting as a pedlar, which is the complete reverse of what it says now.
	The reason why I think that that is important is that there is a lot of suspicion about the motives behind the provisions. There has been a breakdown of trust between the pedlars and the various boroughs whose enforcement officers they believe are harassing them unnecessarily. If the Bill goes forward in a way that, it could be argued, restricts the range of activities that currently comprise acting as a pedlar, not only will that be premature, because we will still be awaiting the report from the Government following the consultation that is taking place, but it will add to the pedlars' frustration and their feeling that they are an oppressed minority. There are only about 3,500 of them up and down the country, and some of us are trying to defend their interests today-and, indeed, to encourage more people to participate in the art and activity of pedlary, which brings so much joy to so many people in so many parts of the country. I have summarised my amendments and I urge hon. Members to support them.

Tobias Ellwood: This has been a very long debate. May I place on record my concern that we could have had another 45 minutes, once the previous chunk of business had finished? Instead, the sitting was suspended, which was unhelpful. We could have had more time to debate these matters.

Peter Bone: rose-

Tobias Ellwood: I will give way briefly, but we really need to make some progress on the Bill.

Peter Bone: I do not think that my hon. Friend is quite correct. The three-hour limit would have been opposed if the Government motion had been accepted.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is not correct. There was an objection made to our continuing with-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we stick to discussing the amendment before the House, and not go into what happened before?

Tobias Ellwood: There is a lot of history behind the Bill. We have debated it more than we have debated most of the Government Bills that have been put through Parliament in this Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who initially objected to its being pushed through at a pace with which he was uncomfortable, made it clear that we needed to give it due discussion, and that was accepted. We have now had that discussion, however, and I am concerned that 81 amendments have been tabled at the eleventh hour. I hope that we will be able to bring this matter to a conclusion here today.
	We have moved much too far away from the real issue, which is the relationship between street traders and pedlars, both of whom have a legitimate role in society today. Unfortunately, there is a legal blurring in regard to how the two work together, to the extent that local authorities up and down the country are having problems with how to control their town centres. The purpose of the Bill-which follows similar Bills relating to places such as Leicester, Medway and London-is to try to reconcile that difference.
	I would be the first to acknowledge that national legislation covering all local councils would be sensible. Unfortunately, we are a long way off achieving that, and the situation in our town centres has created a sense of urgency. We therefore need to push ahead with this legislation. There would not be so many borough councils queuing up to join those that already have the legislation if it were not important. All borough councils face huge financial pressures, and it has cost an awful lot of money to get where we are today. They would not be going down that road unless it were important.

Andrew Murrison: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. It is a pity that individual local authorities have to pursue these matters in this way. My council, Wiltshire county council, has yet to contact me on this matter, but I know that these issues arise in the market towns of Wiltshire, and I am anticipating the day when we might have to introduce a similar Bill for my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a hierarchy of disadvantage for those who operate shops, for street traders and for pedlars-in terms of business rates, for example? That creates a competitive disadvantage that needs to be addressed, and in that respect the market needs to be managed. This Bill is part of that process, albeit in relation only to Bournemouth.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend echoes the importance of pressing ahead with this legislation. We have already had votes in the House on the Bill. Parliament has already spoken on the matter, and I do not want to take up any more of its time. I urge hon. Members to press forward with the Bill and to draw the matter to a conclusion.

Tony Lloyd: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 8, Noes 124.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 4.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 5 and 6.

Christopher Chope: This is a smaller group of amendments. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will show a little more respect to the arguments deployed in support of the amendments in this group than they did to those in the last group. People who are looking at the record will be amazed to think that 28 amendments, which took well over an hour and a half to discuss and concerned many Members of the House, received no response from the Government or the official Opposition and no meaningful response from the sponsors before they curtailed the debate. I hope we do not experience that again, because it sends out a very bad message from this House. It suggests that people who table amendments are never entitled to a response to the arguments they make in support of them.

John Butterfill: I am a little offended on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and myself that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) does not think we replied to the serious points he made. We did not regard some of them as being particularly serious.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that if this Bill reaches the statute book the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will see the result in the Bournemouth magistrates court or divisional court. Perhaps the Government will sort it out by introducing some national legislation.

Edward Leigh: There is a serious matter. In an excellent speech-he gets the Eric Forth award for consistency and accuracy-my hon. Friend made some important points. We should have a convention that at least the Minister should reply to a debate before the closure motion can be moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now spending time on the past and on procedure. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that we move on to the substance of this group of amendments?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Amendment 4 would insert the phrase
	"to the area of the Borough defined in subsection (3) below".
	Subsection (3) is provided by another amendment in this group, amendment 5, which defines a specific area of Bournemouth in which the ambit of the provisions of the Bill will apply. That is the area to the south of the Wessex way, and hon. Members on both sides of the House familiar with conferences in Bournemouth will know that that is the extension of the spur road into town. People travelling from London turn left off the spur road to get to the centre of Bournemouth and to the Bournemouth International Centre, where the conferences are held.
	The area that I am defining would be confined to the area to the south of the spur road-in other words, it would lie between the spur road and the seaside. Restrictions to the west of that area would apply at Durley Chine; to the east, they would apply at the Lansdowne and its Meyrick road extension.

Edward Leigh: We used to have our party conference in Bournemouth, and I much preferred those great days. We would be stopped constantly by people giving us leaflets, but why should they be treated any better or worse than an honest pedlar trying to earn a living?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Leaflets do not have to be sold in order to be issued by pedlars, but perhaps we should have ensured that the people handing them out held pedlars' certificates. I am concerned about this matter because my constituency of Christchurch is so close to Bournemouth-indeed, it is contiguous with it. It is a great inconvenience that we no longer hold Conservative party conferences there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that that is not relevant to the amendments under discussion. We should be concentrating on time and place.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To deal with the question of location, I shall refer to a conversation that I had with Mr. Mark Smith, Bournemouth's director of tourism. We spoke on Monday of this week, over breakfast at a hotel in Christchurch. The meeting was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), although unfortunately he was not able to attend.
	Also at the meeting was a Bournemouth councillor, and I raised with Mr. Smith an issue that I had raised at a discussion at Bournemouth town hall some 18 months ago. Bournemouth says that it has a problem with illegal street trading and rogue pedlars in the town centre, so the suggestion was that the provisions of the Bill should be limited to that area and not extend across the whole area of the borough. I gave Mr. Smith the details of the restricted location proposed in the amendment, and he agreed that, to all intents and purpose, that was the core part of Bournemouth's commercial centre.
	Mr. Smith accepted that it would be an appropriate area to put in a restriction, but he was worried about making any concessions at this stage. He was also worried about what he described as the displacement effect-the possibility that activity currently taking place in the town centre might be displaced elsewhere.
	You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly the same argument as the one that we addressed on Second Reading, when we debated whether the consequence of introducing this legislation in Bournemouth's town centre would be that the activity would be displaced into the borough of Christchurch. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) spoke about towns such as Wimborne and Blandford in his constituency, but at that stage it was denied that there would be any displacement effect. Now, however, the argument about possible displacement is being used against my proposal, which is that the Bill should contain a clear definition of the part of Bournemouth to which these restrictions will apply. It is more complicated than it might seem, because different trading regimes already operate in Bournemouth.
	That point was borne out by the evidence from the same Mr. Mark Smith, the director of tourism, during the Opposed Private Bill Committee at the end of June and the beginning of July last year. I recall him saying, early on in his evidence, that although the Bill would apply to the whole of Bournemouth, some streets were prohibited streets, some were not, and there were some to which the local authority had not sought the application of the 1982 Act. It does not apply to quite a lot of the streets in Bournemouth.
	A question then arose-from a Committee member, I think-about how pedlars going to Bournemouth would know in which streets they could ply their trade. Although the Bill extends to the whole borough of Bournemouth, the whole borough is not subject to the 1982 Act, so pedlary not just from house to house but in the street will be able to continue in parts of the borough. The trouble is, however, as Mr. Smith conceded in his evidence, one will be able to find out the areas where the legislation will apply only by looking on the internet, and that is not a practical proposition for many pedlars. He said that the precise boundaries for the operation of the restrictions in Bournemouth should be set out in a leaflet, which they do not yet have in Bournemouth, and made available to all police authorities throughout the country. They would be able to distribute the details to people when they applied for a pedlar's licence, and those individuals would know the parts of Bournemouth in which they were able to exercise their pedlary certificate without getting on the wrong side of the law.

John Butterfill: Surely it is not beyond the wit of any reasonably prudent pedlars to inquire at the town hall whether there are any areas where they are not permitted to ply their trade. I do not see that being particularly onerous; in fact, any prudent person could do so.

Christopher Chope: If my hon. Friend looks at the evidence from the Opposed Private Bill Committee, he will find that he is slightly at odds with the director of tourism for Bournemouth. If that had been the director's view, he would not have suggested that the way to overcome the problem was to distribute leaflets to every police authority in the country.

John Penrose: Does my hon. Friend agree that time may very well solve that problem? The growing ubiquity of personal handheld electronic devices, such as iPhones, BlackBerrys and so on, most of which are capable of surfing the net, would make it much easier-particularly for entrepreneurial people such as pedlars. He and I agree that they are entrepreneurial, and it will be very easy for them in due course to check in real time on the council's website the location of the streets where they are and are not allowed to trade. Such activity may not be ubiquitous quite yet, but in due course I suspect that it will become increasingly easy. Does he agree?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend addresses somebody who is proud not to have a BlackBerry, so I am not quite sure about the question of ubiquity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that, therefore, he will be impeded as a pedlar?

Christopher Chope: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as a gentleman of good character, if I applied for my pedlar's certificate I would be able to get one.
	My hon. Friend makes a fair point. However, the problem is that this information is not available at the moment. If he looks at the Bournemouth council website, he will not be able to find out to which streets in Bournemouth the 1982 Act applies and to which it does not apply. It is a more complex issue. We have not yet got on to the penalties that will come by way of fixed penalty fines or seizures, but the consequences for a pedlar of operating unwittingly in a street in which he should not be operating can be very significant.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is making an important point that goes right to the heart of what we are talking about. This shows that instead of having these restrictive, bitty borough Bills, we need new national legislation. These peddling free souls are not the sort of people who go around town halls checking on BlackBerrys-they want to get on with running their traditional little business.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	These people will choose a different location for their pedlary on different days of the week. They will go to different towns and different parts of the country, as opposed to somebody who is familiar with their own local territory. That is one of the big distinctions between somebody who is a street trader and somebody who is a pedlar. As Mr. Smith said in giving his evidence, one of the restrictions on being able to get a street trading licence in Bournemouth is that the applicant cannot get one unless they are going to regularly occupy that stall.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. After that little flurry, let us get back to time and place, shall we?

Christopher Chope: The fact that this Bill, if implemented, will not apply to the whole of Bournemouth makes all the stronger the case for saying, "Let's define specifically the part of Bournemouth where there is a problem and set it out in the Bill", so that the situation is as plain as a pikestaff to anybody visiting Bournemouth with a view to carrying on as a pedlar. The council concedes that the area I have described is that where the mischief takes place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In his amendment, is not my hon. Friend setting up a canard in order to shoot it down? If the Bill is to apply at all, would it not be better for it to apply to the whole of the borough? His proposal seeks to define that it should apply only to part of it. In relation to the displacement argument, he would concentrate the amount of peddling activity in certain parts of the borough, which would then become subject to the problem instead of the area that he seeks to exclude. Does he believe in the displacement argument? Does that argument apply in Manchester, where a peddling Bill is in place in certain boroughs but not in others? Is there a displacement problem in that metropolitan area?

Christopher Chope: The jury is out on whether there is a displacement problem. When I raised this issue on Second Reading, I was assured that that was not the case. The Durham university research, with which my hon. Friend is familiar because he managed this brief very ably on the Front Bench during the earlier parts of the proceedings on these Bills-

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I might do it again.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps not today.
	What my hon. Friend said then was that the evidence in the Durham report suggested that there were different circumstances in different areas, and that there might well not be a displacement problem, because pedlars wanted to go where they would find the best atmosphere for peddling their wares. It suggested that that might vary at different times of year, depending on what products they were selling and so on. The displacement argument is probably discredited for the purposes of discussing the amendment. That is certainly my view, and I hope that it is correct. If it is not, we may find that pedlars come to Christchurch borough, which adjoins Bournemouth. If they are lawful pedlars there is no problem, but unlawful pedlars would not be very welcome.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not follow this argument at all. If my hon. Friend has got the area wrong in the amendment, it would require an Act of Parliament to change it. That cannot be right. The amendment would represent the nanny state and Westminster telling a local borough council how to conduct its affairs. He has missed off an area in Boscombe, which is part of my constituency, where pedlars are often found, and an area in Southbourne where there are shops and a village-type centre, so again pedlars would be denied. It does not make sense. We must let Bournemouth borough council operate the system in its area.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend, who unfortunately could not get to the meeting on Monday, even though he set it up, knew then that I was proposing to move this amendment. Instead of our trying to have a meeting of minds on it, there has been a dialogue of the deaf, which is regrettable.

Tobias Ellwood: There would never be a meeting of minds given that my hon. Friend is trying to carve up my constituency and prevent the borough council from doing its job. As a Member of Parliament, he needs to back off from what are rightfully the borough council's operations. I stress again that it would take an Act of Parliament to change an area affected in Bournemouth were the scheme set out in the amendment to be conceived and not work. That cannot be right.

Christopher Chope: With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend, it can be right, because we are talking about having an Act of Parliament to give a derogation from national legislation. I do not believe that we should have such a derogation except on the strongest possible grounds. Perhaps I can use an analogy to try to persuade my hon. Friend. It is possible for a borough council to designate part of its borough as an "alcohol disorder zone"-I think that that is the expression that is used.

Tobias Ellwood: That is for the council to do.

Christopher Chope: But it has to be done in accordance with national legislation, which sets out that an alcohol disorder zone cannot be set up unless there is evidence that there is a problem. My hon. Friend and I know that only this week in our neighbouring borough of Poole, the borough council decided not to set up an alcohol disorder zone because the councillors took the view that the criteria and requirements were not satisfied. I suggest to him that if we are to have a derogation from national legislation, it should apply only to the parts of the country where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it is needed.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are discussing an unusual process of giving a borough the right to do something that other boroughs in the country cannot do, and it should be restricted to the tightest possible area. If national legislation follows it can of course be extended, but at this stage it should be as tight as possible.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point.

Tobias Ellwood: I am still baffled as to how an hon. Member from a different part of the area can seek in an amendment to impose something on a constituency that he has nothing to do with. He can put forward the concept, but it should be for the borough council to determine the matter. I pose him a very simple question: how could a pedlar operate in Boscombe, in my patch, under the amendment? I ask him to recognise the folly in what he proposes and withdraw the amendment now.

Christopher Chope: There is no evidence at all of an unlawful street trading problem in Boscombe. I therefore submit that there is no need to apply the measures in the Bill to the area. Boscombe would be relevant only if my hon. Friend accepts the displacement argument, but he has expressly argued against it. Instead, he has tried to satisfy me that there will not be a displacement problem in Christchurch, which I represent, as a result of the Bournemouth provisions. We need to try to keep things as clear and simple as possible.
	The area that amendment 5 would define is very similar to the area of the alcohol disorder zone in Bournemouth. It is perhaps regrettable that we have been unable to have a proper dialogue about the details, for reasons I already set out. If we had had that dialogue, we might have been able to change the proposal to allow the area to be altered in particular circumstances. However, as things are, it is not apparent from any documents that are available at the town hall which parts of Bournemouth are subject to the provisions of the 1982 Act and therefore subject to the provisions in the Bill. That is unsatisfactory, because legislation should be clear.
	We are also debating the corresponding amendment to the Manchester City Council Bill. I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of the city of Manchester is not as considerable as my knowledge of the town of Bournemouth. Therefore, rather than seeking to define the area in which operations in Manchester could be carried out by reference to streets-obviously, Manchester is an inland area and does not have a big trunk road like the Wessex way in Bournemouth-I thought it better to use a similar calculation to those used in London, namely ones based on so many miles, metres or yards from Trafalgar square.
	I have therefore suggested, in the proposed amendment to the Manchester City Council Bill, that there should be a defined area bound by a circle with a 1 mile radius from Albert square. I do not know how well you know Manchester, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am advised by the locals that Albert square is very much the heart of Manchester-the town hall is there and it is easy to measure 1 mile from it on a map.

Peter Bone: I have one small technical question. Amendment 7 uses the distance of 1 mile, but in the rest of the debate, we have been talking in metres. Should the amendment not propose a distance of 1.61 km?

Christopher Chope: No, it definitely should not. We spoke earlier of derogations. Fortunately, we still have the freedom in this country to refer to miles as a standard method of measurement of distance in relation to roads. We do not have to go to the metric mile, which is why I have proposed 1 mile. I hope that that is clear.
	There is a very different situation in Manchester compared- [ Interruption. ] Is my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East making a sedentary comment about four minutes? Does he wish to intervene, or is he threatening me by saying he is going to move a closure motion in four minutes?  [ Interruption. ] I see: he is talking about the four-minute mile. It is very difficult to concentrate when there are sedentary interruptions- [ Interruption ]-but my hon. Friend is continuing to make them.
	It would be sensible to do the same in Manchester as in Bournemouth, because on the evidence put forward by the city council, that is where the problem lies. The area would be clearly defined and it is, after all, important that the law should be clear.
	I also contend that these provisions should only be in force when necessary. When I had my initial discussions with Bournemouth council about amendments to the Bill, I made the point that as the problem does not arise 12 months of the year, but only in the summer and around Christmas, it would be sensible to limit the ambit of the Bill to those times.

Tobias Ellwood: I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw this amendment because it would be madness to impose a time limit. We need control over pedlars' relationship with street traders throughout the year, whether on football match days, new year's eve or new year's day. There are many examples of celebrations and outdoor activities, such as Valentine's day, on which pedlars will want to do their business, and must do it correctly. To limit the Bill to the summer months is out of place and this amendment does not deserve to be anywhere near the Bill.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend was not at the meeting that I had at the town hall with Bournemouth borough council officers and councillors back in January or February 2008. I raised this issue, and they did not dismiss it in the same way as my hon. Friend has done. They went away to consider it, and they also discussed it with the promoters of similar Bills. It was agreed between them that none of them would give any ground and they would all stand in solidarity, irrespective of the merits of the arguments made.

Tobias Ellwood: As a representative of Bournemouth, I can confirm that this amendment would be very damaging to the town, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) agrees. We need this Bill to work throughout the year, including Valentine's day and mothers' day, and not be focused on just one period. It would be unworkable and cost the borough council even more than at present. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to listen to the arguments, not his recollections of previous conversations, and withdraw this amendment.

Christopher Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says-

John Butterfill: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) says. Bournemouth is almost unique in being a 12-month-

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Destination.

John Butterfill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that is the word I was looking for. Holidays are taken throughout the year, and the town has expanded into the conference trade in a big way, as well as the language school trade. It operates for 12 months of the year: it is not a resort that closes down after the summer.

Christopher Chope: I hear what my hon. Friends say, but when the director of tourism was asked about this issue in the Opposed Private Bill Committee he made it clear that there was a problem at particular times of the year, especially in the summer and at Christmas. Now it seems that this is a problem the year round. If that is my hon. Friends' view, I can understand why they are opposed to the amendments.

John Butterfill: Perhaps my hon. Friend misunderstood what he was told by the director of tourism. Certainly we have peak months, but there is a great deal of tourism and business activity the year round. I think perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding between our director of tourism and my hon. Friend.

Christopher Chope: I do not want to risk falling out with my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) over this matter. Of all my concerns, my biggest relates to the Bill itself rather than the months in which it will operate. In the spirit of good will, therefore, I tell them that I will not press amendment 6 to a vote, although I have slightly different views on amendment 5.

Peter Bone: I have heard the arguments about Bournemouth being a unique case, which I am prepared to accept, and I heard what my hon. Friends have said. However, does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) think that that also applies to the Manchester Bill, which has an identical clause?

Christopher Chope: It is significant that although we are debating amendments to both Bills, we have not-if my recollection is correct-heard any comments, whether positive or negative, from anybody from Manchester about anything that has been said this afternoon.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that they moved the closure. Perhaps they did. I missed that point of detail. If that is true, it makes their behaviour so much more cynical.
	We can have a perfectly good and healthy public debate about whether we should limit the application of the Bill in Bournemouth to June, July, August, September and December. My hon. Friends have put forward perfectly reasonable arguments saying, "Well, Bournemouth is a busy town the year round, and the problems discussed are problems 24/7"-to use that colloquialism-but we have heard nothing from Manchester Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned. That suggests that the arguments that I have deployed about limiting the provisions to June, July, August, September and December would be relevant in Manchester, where notoriously-I think one could say-the weather is much inferior to that on the sunny south coast of England.
	Indeed, when I was last in Manchester, during the Conservative party conference last year, it was drizzly and raining most of the time. The local people said, "That's par for the course. You're lucky it's not raining more heavily." Obviously, if one has such varying weather conditions-I am trying to provoke a response from some of the Members from Greater Manchester-it will impact significantly upon the ability of pedlars to go about their business, particularly if they are carrying the goods on their person. In dank conditions, there will be many fewer people on the streets. There will be less likelihood, therefore, of pedlars being around in very large numbers and of illegal activity about which a complaint might be made.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I assume that my hon. Friend believes in the importance of the local democratic process and that local councils should have the power to make their own decisions. Why does he not think that it would be better to allow the Bill to go through, albeit with provisions to allow each council to which the Bill applies to make their own democratic decisions about the time and place, rather than having it dictated from the centre in this place?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive argument, but the essential difference between these Bills and much local legislation is that most local legislation applies only to local people, whereas these Bills affect people who do not live in a particular locality. They might affect some local people-there is evidence of 200-plus pedlars being certificated and resident in Manchester; probably not all of them are in the city of Manchester, but they are within the Greater Manchester police authority area-but we are talking about a regime that will apply to pedlars whether they are normally resident in Cornwall or Northumbria, and that regime needs to be clear. If we have a different regime for pedlars in every town across the country, I submit that things will be pretty chaotic.
	My hon. Friend is great localist, and so am I-in principle-but not when it comes to the application of national legislation. I am sure that he would be the first to concede that even when powers are given to local authorities-for example, to set up alcohol disorder zones-quite strong criteria are applied nationally to ensure no inconsistency of application between one local authority area and another. That is the point that I am trying to get across.

Edward Leigh: The more I listen to my hon. Friend, the more it occurs to me that the provision that we are discussing is more like a local byelaw governing how people behave in a local park. However, that byelaw would apply to local people, whereas pedlars are nationwide. We would not dream of introducing a Bill to attack chemists or doctors. It is because pedlars are working class and unrepresented-they are a small group without a powerful lobby-that this House believes that it can treat them in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has been speaking for a considerable proportion of the time available. May I suggest that we confine ourselves to the issues that are the subject of his amendment and not get involved in a wider debate, which we have had on many previous occasions?

Christopher Chope: I certainly do not want to replicate the wider debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me bring us back to what the amendments do and note that no one from Manchester has raised any objection to the points that I have raised about the Manchester City Council Bill. I urge the House to agree that the specific restriction that I have proposed for the Manchester City Council Bill-that the ambit of the legislation should not extend beyond 1 mile from the centre of Manchester as defined by Albert square-is probably the strongest argument that I can put forward from among all the amendments. Obviously it would be inappropriate to take up the House's time by voting on more than one amendment in the group. When it comes to the appropriate time, I would therefore seek to have a vote on that amendment to the Manchester City Council Bill, rather than on an amendment to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends will see that as a reasonable way out of our predicament.
	This will be my final comment on this subject, because I know that other people wanted to participate in this debate, but there is an analogy between what we are debating and legislation on shotguns. Shotgun certificates can be obtained from a police authority anywhere in the country, and they have national application. Would this House contemplate a situation where each local authority could legislate for the way in which shotguns could be used or operated in its area, even when the holder of a shotgun had a licence for it that had been issued on a national basis? The answer is that we would not.
	There is always a conflict between what is in the national interest and what is in the local interest. In this case, however, because there is national legislation relating to pedlars and because the pedlars' certificate has national application, it is wrong to say that local will should always prevail, especially if the consequent legislation is unclear, muddled and hard for pedlars to understand.
	The latest Government consultation paper states that pedlars are, on the whole, entrepreneurial, and good with-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not following my guidance. We must come back to the points in question. I thought that he was winding up-

Christopher Chope: I am.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, may we proceed?

Christopher Chope: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My peroration was going on for longer than it should have done. I said that I would wind up, so I will. I have made my point, and I know that other people want to contribute to this important debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press this amendment to a vote?

Christopher Chope: I will move that amendment-the amendment that we introduced-formally now. Then, perhaps, later on, when we come to the question of voting, I might seek leave to withdraw it and propose an alternative one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press those amendments that are connected with Bournemouth, perhaps he will clarify that.

Christopher Chope: My understanding was that we were voting on amendments relating to both Bournemouth and Manchester-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That one is debated now, but would be voted on later, so the hon. Gentleman has to decide. I am prepared to concede that there can be a Division on amendment 7 to the Manchester City Council Bill. We have debated it, but now, in sequence, we have to dispose of amendment 4, which he has proposed. If he wishes to withdraw that, and to move on, we will come to amendment 7 to the Manchester City Council Bill at a later time.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that clarification. I had not realised that the proceedings were going to be as elongated as that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In relation to the vote that we had on the previous group of amendments, relating mainly to clause 5, it seemed from your ruling that it would still be possible to vote on one amendment in that group when we get to the Manchester voting. Is that right?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hoped that I had made it clear that it will be possible to have a vote on amendment 7 to the Manchester City Council Bill, which I understand from the hon. Gentleman's words is the one that he wishes to divide the House on. However, we still have to dispose of the amendments in this group. Do I take it that he wishes to withdraw amendment 4?

Christopher Chope: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not withdraw amendment 4. I will seek to press amendment 4 to the vote, but not the other amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that amendment 4 is the paving amendment for the two other amendments connected with Bournemouth. If I may respectfully say so, it would not be very logical for him not to press amendments 5 and 6-for which amendment 4 is the paving amendment-if his interest is in having a substantive vote on amendment 7 to the Manchester City Council Bill.

Christopher Chope: My understanding is that, unless I propose an amendment, it will not be possible for the debate to continue. An amendment needs to be proposed-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wishes the debate on amendment 4 to continue.

Christopher Chope: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made. I call Mr. Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intend to be brief, as we have already gone into many of the subjects in great detail.
	My concern about the amendments is that they relate to a private Bill that will
	"seek rights and powers over and above those sanctioned by public acts or the common law".
	We are not debating a Bill that has been proposed by the Government; we are debating matters that relate to specific areas and are above the normal law. In my view, we must draw the provision as tightly- [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary comment that it is law in London, but what we are talking about today is Bournemouth and Manchester. If we are to do this properly, we should draw the provisions as tightly as possible. Amendment 7 relates to Bournemouth and there are similar amendments on Manchester; they relate to particular areas and minimise the extent to which the Bills exceed national law, which must be to the good. I have heard no arguments to the effect that the Manchester area is not defined. I certainly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to press his amendment to the vote.
	We have heard different arguments about Bournemouth. I am prepared to concede that they may apply because of the 24/7 culture of the whole borough of Bournemouth, so that that area should be included. I will not support the amendment on Bournemouth but I will support the one on Manchester. As for the amendment dealing with the period over which the Bill will apply, there is a compelling argument for the House to draw the legislation as tightly as possible in order to stop infringing the rights of pedlars. That amendment makes a lot of common sense, so I will support it as well.

Edward Leigh: I rise to support amendments 5 and 6. In a sense, the House of Commons is beginning to make itself look rather ridiculous, if it is getting down to the level of detail of whether peddling should take place in the wider Bournemouth area or in the area bounded by Wessex way to the north, the sea to the south and Durley Chine to the west. I am not as familiar with Bournemouth as I should be, but this underlines the point I tried to make earlier-that it is probably a mistake for the House to get down to this level of detail. It would be much better to have a broadly based Bill to regulate peddling and ensure that pedlars operate generally in the way they are traditionally supposed to operate.
	I accept that there may be a problem nationally in that the nature of peddling is changing and the old-fashioned traditional pedlar with whom we are familiar is perhaps being replaced by a species of person who might come from abroad and who might try to displace urban traders. As I have said, I accept that there may be a problem with that nationally, but if that is true, the Government need to get their act together and bring in a national Bill.
	Here we are talking about a level of detail applying to pedlars that determines whether or not they can trade in a particular location. These are people who move around the entire country. Questions were raised earlier about whether these people do or do not have enough local knowledge, whether they use their BlackBerrys, whether they go to the town hall or whether leaflets are issued nationally. That shows some of the problems that will be imposed on these people.
	Generally speaking, it is bad for the House to create more and more prescriptive rules and regulations that make it more and more difficult to be law abiding. Why do we assume that these people are not law abiding? Why do we assume that they do not want to carry on their traditional trade? Why are we telling them that it is perfectly lawful to trade in a certain area of Bournemouth, but not in another area of Bournemouth.
	If we move on to amendment 6, it becomes even more absurd, as it deals with times of the year, making it very difficult to know what is going on. Our debate about place and time, led so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), is an important one: it is not just a narrow issue; it goes to the heart of the Bill. To what extent are we prepared to start interfering with what has traditionally been seen as a lawful activity? If the number of complaints were huge, I would accept that there was a problem. However, the information I have received is that one authority complains once a month. That is hardly a great issue that should be debated on the Floor of the House.
	I wish that we were not discussing the Bill at all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is trying to restrict the area of Bournemouth to which it applies. Apart from him and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), I doubt that anyone in the Chamber, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is familiar in any detail with what constitutes the area bounded by Wessex way, the sea to the south and so on. Why are we debating it? We must take the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that the area is a sensible one to define.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend accept that the director of tourism agreed in our meeting on Monday that the area was prima facie a good one to define?

Edward Leigh: I believe what my hon. Friend tells me, but if the area in question is the best one, why is it not in the original Bill? We all know what would happen if a vote took place-Members who were not familiar in any shape or form with Bournemouth would be told by the Whips that they should get the Bill through and pile into the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.

Edward Leigh: Of course I take your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	To conclude, if the Bill is to be imposed, let us ensure that its provisions do as little damage to the peddling community as possible. Let us support my hon. Friend's amendment, which would at least restrict the area to the town centre, so that we do not force pedlars out of business in the wider area.

Christopher Chope: I am conscious that we have not had a substantive contribution to the debate from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) other than through useful interventions. We have had no discussion whatever in relation to Manchester city council. On day two of the Opposed Private Bill Committee, Superintendent Lee made it clear in his evidence that the problem in Manchester is confined to places such as Albert square and Piccadilly, and that it is limited to times such as the Christmas lights switch-on, which is one of the big events of the year in Manchester. If the Bill passes unamended in relation to time and location, its ambit will cover every month of the year and every street in the city of Manchester, the case for which has not been made.
	The wider the ambit of such restrictive legislation, the more difficult it is to have a sensible enforcement regime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been given the opportunity to wind up, not to repeat his previous speech. It would be helpful to the House if he made his intention clear.

Christopher Chope: I will-

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend reply to my point, as he is perfectly entitled to do, in his winding-up remarks? It is difficult for us who are not familiar in any detail with Bournemouth to come to a conclusion on whether the area for peddling should be bounded by Wessex way to the north and the sea to the south. How can we have such local knowledge?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. How can we have the local knowledge? Pedlars up and down the country are in the self-same position, because they want some certainty. They want to know which parts of the boroughs-
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Debate to be resumed on Thursday 28 January at 3 pm.

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL BILL [ LORDS]

Bill to be considered  on Thursday 28 January at 3 pm.

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL BILL

Bill to be considered  on Thursday 28 January at 3 pm.

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Bill to be considered  on Thursday 28 January at 3 pm.

John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was a problem during the Division on the closure motion. I was one of those who were looking after the situation, and I went into the toilets to ensure that no one was left in there before we closed the procedure with the Tellers. When I came out-having found no one in there-the Clerks were still in their places, but one of my colleagues had gone through and said "All out", which meant that the Tellers did not have an opportunity to record accurately that I was still going through. The Clerks say that only you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can ensure that my name is included as one of those who voted in the Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is in my power, I so order, but in any event the hon. Gentleman has made it absolutely clear to the House and those who follow our affairs what his intention was. I think the conclusion that we can draw is that it pays to be fleet of foot.

PROSTATE CANCER (ABIRATERONE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Heppell.)

Daniel Kawczynski: I am pleased to have secured an Adjournment debate on the diagnosis of prostate cancer and trials of the drug abiraterone.
	Ten thousand men die of prostate cancer every year. A welcome recent development was an advertisement on television by Bob Monkhouse. His wife, now regrettably deceased herself, kindly allowed the use of images of her late husband talking about prostate cancer while walking around a graveyard. Having spoken to quite a few people about the advertisement, I know that it is remembered because it was so effective.
	I very much hope that in future, when the Government put out public broadcast advertisements, a little more imagination is used, and lessons can be learned from the Bob Monkhouse video. It is important to ensure that people remember the issues rather than thinking, "It is just another Government advert, yet more Labour spin", and forgetting about it. If we are going to spend this money, we ought to think imaginatively so that we can build on the Bob Monkhouse advertisement in a way that resonates.
	I have called this debate because a constituent of mine, Mr. Roger Walker of Shrewsbury, suffers from prostate cancer. Earlier this evening, I sent the Minister a copy of a very emotional letter that I had received from Mr. Walker. I hope that, if the Minister has not yet received the letter, he will take time to have a look at what my constituent has written to me about the extraordinary suffering that he has undergone as a result of not having prostate cancer diagnosed effectively when he first sought help.
	My constituent decided to see his local general practitioner because he was going to the toilet far more often than was normal, and his brother, who at the time was dying of prostate cancer, had informed him that that was a symptom. Very regrettably, his brother subsequently died. His father has also died of prostate cancer, as has his uncle. Therefore, there is a history of the men in the Walker family being affected by prostate cancer.
	Mr. Walker went to see his GP, but he was not given a screening test, despite informing the practice that his brother, father and uncle had all died, or were dying, of prostate cancer. Nor was he given a prostate-specific antigen-PSA. However, such was the perseverance of Mr. Walker-he is a strong, powerful and persuasive man, who makes his point very well-that he doggedly kept going back to the medical practice until he was finally granted a PSA. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. That diagnosis, however, came 10 and a half months after his initial approach to the doctor, and that 10 and a half months has had a great impact, as it would have on anybody living with a disease such as prostate cancer without being diagnosed. That leads to huge complications, and any other medication and available treatments were, of course, not used in that period.
	I am not criticising in any way any of the NHS staff in Shrewsbury-either people in the medical practice or anybody who dealt with Mr. Walker. I am very proud of the NHS staff in Shropshire; we have very good staff. If there have been individual problems in respect of individual doctors or others who dealt with Mr. Walker, however, that will be addressed by the General Medical Council. My purpose is to let the Minister know what happened to my constituent, and to highlight his case to him.
	What would I like the Minister to do? An article was printed in the  Daily Mail on 8 July, including an interview with the leading researcher, Dr. Johann de Bono from the Royal Marsden hospital. The title of the article was: "The prostate cancer 'wonder pill' set to save thousands every year". It stated that there had been
	"a dramatic breakthrough against a lethal form of prostate cancer."
	Mr. Walker read the article and it gave him significant hope. It said:
	"Trials of a new pill have shown that it can shrink tumours in up to 80 per cent. of cases, and end the need for damaging chemotherapy and radiotherapy...Abiraterone is now being used in a 1,200-patient international study, including at ten sites across the UK. If it is licensed as expected in 2011, it will have to await approval by the rationing watchdog NICE before it is made freely available across the NHS."
	I do not want Mr. Walker, my constituent who has been through so much pain, to have to wait for the drug to be licensed in 2011 and then for it to be approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I very much hope that he will be allowed to be one of the people in the United Kingdom who is involved in this international study, and be given the drug abiraterone so that his life can be prolonged.
	I have written to Dr. de Bono about this, and he wrote back to me saying that he will consider Mr. Walker's case only if he is referred. I therefore want to let the Minister know that I have today written to the chief executive of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, asking for Mr. Walker's referral appointment, which is not due until the end of February, to be brought forward. He can then be seen as quickly as possible at the hospital and be referred as quickly as possible to Dr. de Bono at the Royal Marsden hospital, so that he can be considered for the drug abiraterone.
	An interesting point is made in the article, to which I would like the Minister to respond. It states that Dr. de Bono
	"describes prostate cancer as the 'Cinderella cancer' because it receives just a quarter of the funding of breast cancer".
	Interestingly, in the UK the same number of people die from prostate cancer as from breast cancer, but prostate cancer research receives only £10 million per annum, whereas breast cancer research received £40 million last year. I am rather concerned about that big difference.
	In the time left available to me, I want to make a few points that were passed on to me by the Prostate Cancer Charity, which has kindly provided me with a briefing paper for this debate. It informs me that the United Kingdom National Screening Committee is reviewing an introduction of a national prostate cancer screening programme later this year. This eminent charity says the following:
	"Recent research has found that screening for prostate cancer using the PSA test can reduce the number of deaths from the disease by 20 per cent. However, the authors of this study also stated that a national screening programme would lead to a significant level of over-diagnosis of 'harmless' prostate cancers. This means that current evidence does not appear to show that a national screening programme for prostate cancer, using the PSA test, could achieve an acceptable balance between benefit (through lives saved) and harm (though over-diagnosis and false positive and false negative results)."
	I would very much like to know the Minister's attitude to the National Screening Committee's reviewing and to the point made by the charity.
	I feel passionately and very much agree with this point from the charity:
	"The Prostate Cancer Charity does not currently support the introduction of PSA-based national prostate cancer screening programme. However, the Charity strongly supports the right of every man over the age of 50 years-and younger men at higher risk of prostate cancer-to make an informed choice about whether he should have a PSA test."
	That is very important, and I would like the Minister to confirm that anybody in the United Kingdom who is over that age or who has a history of prostate cancer in the family, as my constituent had, should be able to go to their doctor and demand a PSA test because of their concerns, particularly if they are showing early symptoms.
	The Department of Health policy states that all men are entitled to make an informed decision about whether they should have the PSA test. Currently, information about the PSA test is delivered to men through the prostate cancer risk management programme-PCRMP. Under the current implementation of the PCRMP, for men to receive balanced information about the PSA test from their GP they must first be aware of prostate cancer and the PSA test, and then request to see their GP for further advice. That is the main crux of what I wish to put to the Minister and of what the Prostate Cancer Charity wishes to say.
	Recent research by the charity has found that
	"around 50 per cent. of 50-70 year old men are not aware of the PSA test".
	That refers to my point about the need for effective advertising. That figure of 50 per cent. is incredible, so I very much hope that through my having this Adjournment debate and my local media taking up the issue in Shropshire, my Salopian constituents will begin to find out more about the PSA test.
	The charity also found that
	"awareness of the PSA test is lower among men from lower socio-economic groups"
	and that
	"82 per cent. of GPs were not aware of the PCRMP".
	Finally,
	"20 per cent. of GPs did not think that asymptomatic men should have access to the PSA test."
	That is of great concern to me. I do not understand-I hope that the Minister can give me an answer-how a GP could be against a PSA test if their patient was showing signs of prostate cancer. I am not a medical man, but it seems highly logical that they would always support a PSA test. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on that. Those findings highlight the broad lack of awareness about the PSA test as well as the barriers that some informed men might face when requesting a test from their GP.
	It has been a great pleasure for me to be able to highlight the risk of prostate cancer and to play a small part in trying to highlight the terrible issues that surround this appalling disease and illness. This is one of those occasions as a Back Bencher when one realises just how worth while this job is-when one can highlight a constituent's suffering on their behalf and try to cut through the red tape in some way by raising it with the Minister.
	I feel passionately about Mr. Walker's case and want to do something to help him. He is a grandfather with five beautiful grandchildren and I hope that by raising this issue I can ask the Minister, although he is a very busy man, to help me and my office as we try to support Mr. Walker through these difficult times.

Mike O'Brien: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate? I can think of few things more important than our fight against cancer, and that is why we have put in place the national two-week targets for people to be able to see a cancer specialist. It is also why we recently announced that we need to ensure that cancer diagnosis tests are completed within one week. We want to ensure that these improvements in cancer health are put in place quickly.
	This terrible and insidious disease will touch most of our lives at some point-through members of our family, because we know someone who has cancer or because we battle it ourselves. The hon. Gentleman asked what action the NHS is taking to ensure that cancer, patients are given the early diagnosis and treatment that are so vital in dealing with the disease, but before I talk about that perhaps I can first address his concerns for his constituent, Roger Walker. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the Bob Monkhouse advert, which I, too, thought was extremely effective. People do remember it.
	I was very sorry to hear that Mr. Walker has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. I have not had his letter yet, but I shall certainly read it, as the hon. Gentleman requests. I understand that Mr. Walker's brother, father and uncle died from this disease. We know that this particular cancer can cluster in families, with about 5 to 10 per cent. of cases thought to have a substantial inherited component. At present, there are no definitive guidelines for screening in such high-risk families because of the uncertainties about the effectiveness of testing and treatment, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. However, the leaflet that GPs give to patients who are concerned about prostate cancer clearly states:
	"The risk is greater for men who have a family history of prostate cancer".
	Bearing in mind Mr. Walker's family history and the importance of early diagnosis to successful treatment, I can understand his concern at not being offered the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, test by his former GP at the earliest opportunity.
	On 16 July 2007, Mr. Walker registered a complaint with the General Medical Council about his then GP's failure to make a timely referral and diagnosis of the cancer. I understand that after looking at the patient notes, the GMC closed the case with no further action as it considered that
	"on the basis of the evidence available, there was no realistic prospect of proving his GP's fitness to practise was impaired to a degree which would warrant action on his registration."
	On 19 May 2008, Mr. Walker provided the GMC with further evidence, leading to the reopening of his case. An investigation is ongoing and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that neither he nor I can comment further on that.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me to consider Mr. Walker's request to participate in the ongoing trials of abiraterone. Such matters are not for Ministers: quite rightly, they are not political decisions and so are beyond Ministers' influence. Whether a person is appropriate for trials of a particular drug is a wholly clinical decision, and I am told that subjects are selected according to the strict eligibility criteria that are set to test a drug's safety and efficacy.
	In other words, a group is selected for the testing of a particular drug, but unfortunately, some people do not meet the criteria. I am advised that it appears that Mr. Walker is one of those who do not meet the criteria, but the hon. Gentleman has written to the chairman of his PCT and I hope that the matter will be examined and an appropriate decision taken. Mr. Walker is dealing with a multidisciplinary team at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital, and I am told that the team will be looking at alternative clinical trials that may be more suitable for his condition.
	I turn now to the other matters raised by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Everyone involved in cancer care is dedicated to improving outcomes for people with cancer. The goal of the Government's 2007 cancer reform strategy is to deliver cancer care outcomes that are among the best in the world.
	In 2008-09, the Health Secretary spent more than £5 billion on cancer services in England, and that is more than 5 per cent. of all NHS spending. Spending on cancer services has increased by more than a third over the past five financial years. There are now around 1,500 multidisciplinary cancer teams working to improve the delivery of treatment and care for cancer patients. The result has been that mortality rates for cancer fell by almost one fifth between 1996 and 2008, which means that every year there are more than 9,000 people walking around who previously would have died.
	Today, on average, 95 per cent. of people see a specialist within two weeks of referral for suspected cancer. In Mr. Walker's local hospital, the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital, the rate is even higher, at 99.5 per cent. That is a very good rate and, since April last year, all patients undergoing treatment for cancer, the effects of cancer or the effects of cancer treatment are entitled to free prescriptions.
	In 2000, the Government published the NHS prostate cancer programme, in which we set out our commitment to improve prostate cancer services. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to continue to work on prostate cancer, as it is an area in which a lot of improvement is still needed. By improving the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer, by improving the treatment and care that patients receive, and by enhancing research into the disease, our aim was to ensure that we could assist those men who may be at risk.
	Early diagnosis is an important part of effective treatment for prostate cancer. From next year, and over the following five years, we will roll out diagnostic tests that can confirm or exclude cancer within a week. We believe that faster access to diagnostic tests, alongside work on early detection, will help save up to 10,000 lives a year. Screening is therefore an important tool in early diagnosis, and that is why we have developed world-class screening programmes for breast, bowel and cervical cancers. Although there is currently no automatic national screening programme for prostate cancer, we remain committed to introducing new screening programmes as and when they are proven to be both clinically and cost effective.
	Research published last March in the  New England Journal of Medicine has shown for the first time that screening for prostate cancer can reduce the death rate by 20 per cent. However, it also showed that more than 1,410 men needed to be screened to save one life-and that 48 of those would end up being treated unnecessarily, with all the side effects that that can cause. There are therefore problems to do with screening that we really need to resolve before any test is introduced on a national basis, because treating 48 people unnecessarily to save one life would pose significant difficulties. We have asked the UK National Screening Committee to review this evidence and to make a recommendation on prostate cancer screening by the autumn of this year.
	As part of our prostate cancer programme, we have established the prostate cancer risk management programme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This ensures that men considering a prostate-specific antigen test are given the information that they need about it. For a while a PSA test can help with diagnosis, but it is not perfect. Some men with prostate cancer do not have raised PSA levels, and, depending on the cut-off level used, two thirds of men with raised PSA levels do not have prostate cancer, so the test is not perfect. It can lead to false-positive and false-negative results, and that is why PSA tests divide opinion among GPs and, indeed, other clinicians. Some are concerned about them because of those issues, and the PSA test cannot distinguish between men with slow-growing prostate cancer, which may have no effect on a man's natural lifespan, and those who have a more aggressive disease.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about choice. In 2010 all GPs in England were sent a pack of materials to give their patients the information that they need to make an informed choice about the PSA test. Our policy, as he rightly says, is that if a patient wants a test, after considering the benefits, limitations and risks associated with it, they should receive one on the NHS. Based on an evaluation of the ongoing prostate cancer risk management programme, a revised information pack was sent to GPs in July 2009, six months ago. In August the chief medical officer then wrote to all GPs to remind them that their patients should be given access to PSA tests in accordance with the PCRMP.
	A lot of information is thrown at GPs, so we need constantly to remind them to do various things, because we ask them to do so many. The hon. Gentleman is right that, sometimes, feedback from polls states that some GPs do not know about the test. It does not mean that they have not been told; it may mean that they have been told but, given the sheer volume of information that they are sent, have forgotten it or do not have it at the forefront of their mind.
	It was recognised that some GPs are unaware either of the original pack or of their patients' right to a PSA test, so an action plan to engage GPs better has been developed. There has already been a trade media launch and a webcast, and GPs now have the PCRMP materials on their IT systems, helping them better to support their patients. Other plans to remind them include a roadshow for GPs and a peer-reviewed paper in the  British Medical Journal. The campaign to alert men to prostate cancer is therefore enormously important, and I welcome the stories that have appeared in the  Daily Mail. That work is valuable in alerting men and getting them to go to their GP if they have problems, and reminding GPs that men should be given the PSA test. Such campaigns can save the lives of many men, so I welcome the work of the  Daily Mail. Whether the drug that we have discussed is a "wonder pill" is another matter, but we will see what the outcome is of the clinical trials.
	Once diagnosed, patients are entitled to receive the best possible care on the NHS. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has published a series of improving outcomes guidance covering all major cancer tumours, including urological cancers such as prostate cancer. It recommended the way in which primary care trusts and cancer networks should organise cancer services to ensure the best outcomes, and the national cancer action team monitors progress against those plans. In 2008, NICE also published new guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, and they recommended good practice based on the best available evidence and professional opinion.
	However good our treatment today, we must always strive for more, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. We can still continue to do better. The Government are among the largest funders of cancer research, along with the industry and the cancer research charities. Through the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, we fund about £250 million of cancer research every year. The vast majority of this money supports clinical trials and research undertaken by our partners in the public and charitable sectors. We are very proud of our record of excellence in health research and of what its results mean for people not only in the UK but around the whole world. Britain is one of the leaders in cancer research. The Government are determined to continue to do whatever we can in the fight against cancer: it is an enormously high priority for us. Our excellent record of high investment and high ambition is saving more lives today. We have a long way to go in the fight against cancer, but we must, and will, strive to do more.
	Finally, I wish Mr. Walker well in his continuing treatment and hope that it brings with it some success.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.